HIV Vaccine Research Coordination by the World Health Organization Between 1990 and 1995: Negotiating the Access to Research Cohorts of Military Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents how acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) vaccine research was coordinated internationally between 1990 and 1995 by creating a special unit within the World Health Organization (WHO), the AIDS Vaccine Development (VAD) unit. This WHO's international coordination constituted a paradoxical repoliticisation of international human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) research, as it centralised scattered, privatised and sometimes hidden research within a single international organisation, while also reinscribing research in southern countries into ambivalent, postcolonial power relations by means of humanist arguments and research cohorts of military subjects. This history is important because the WHO coordination appears to have unwillingly elided the sociopolitical conditions of possibility for experimentation that were also, in part, driving the explosion of HIV infection on the continent at that time. Finally, it helps reflect on how the current global health paradigm of accelerated research for innovations and vaccine development can institute uneven research infrastructures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.193 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".