MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410094565 · doi:10.1596/17938

Mapping and Situation Assessment of Key Populations at High Risk of HIV in Three Cities of Afghanistan

2008· book· en· W4410094565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHIV/AIDS Impact and Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GeographyEnvironmental healthEnvironmental planningMedicineComputer scienceComputer securityVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As yet, little is known about the HIV epidemic status and potential in Afghanistan. The country seems to be at an early epidemic phase with low HIV prevalence, but there are a number of underlying vulnerability factors that could lead to the conditions for epidemic expansion, including drug trafficking, the post-conflict situation with displacement of populations, a fledgling health care system, and a low level of knowledge and awareness about HIV/AIDS. As in other parts of central and south Asia, the most important proximate determinants of the scale and distribution of an HIV epidemic in Afghanistan will be the size and characteristics of high risk networks involving injecting drug users (IDUs), female sex workers (FSWs) and men who have sex with men (MSM) who are at high risk. Assessments from elsewhere in central Asia indicate an explosive growth in injecting drug use and commercial sex work throughout the region, concurrent epidemics of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and economic and political migration. As yet, little information is known about the size, distribution, and characteristics of IDU and sex worker sub-populations in Afghanistan. Therefore, the World Bank (WB) agreed with the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) to contract with the University of Manitoba (UM) to conduct an assessment of these three key, high risk populations in three cities of Afghanistan (Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad, and Kabul).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHIV/AIDS Impact and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207