"Eight to ten years ago, dengue was a killer disease...but it is not a killer disease anymore:" a qualitative approach to dengue in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dengue is a mosquito borne disease. Aedes mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in particular, are the vectors for dengue disease. Aedes mosquitoes feed mainly on humans, live in close proximity to humans, and breed in water containers. Although classical dengue is not considered harmful, dengue hemorrhagic fever may cause severe harm to individual health, including death. Every year, 100 millions dengue cases are reported globally along with 250,000 dengue hemorrhagic cases. Bangladesh has experienced several outbreaks of dengue since 2000, and most dengue cases were reported in Dhaka city. After realizing the ineffectiveness of the top-down approaches, community participations has been given importance and acknowledged by many as necessary for an effective dengue prevention program. This qualitative research explores community perceptions (knowledge, attitudes, and practice) of dengue fever with a special emphasis on the concepts of risk, power, and responsibility for dengue transmission and prevention. The research utilized survey questionnaires, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and informal field observations. Findings suggest that respondents do have knowledge that dengue is transmitted by mosquitoes, but they do not recognize the Aedes dengue mosquito or their breeding habits, associating dirty water rather than cleaned stored water with dengue risk. Moreover, respondents tend to underestimate dengue risk for various reasons, including daily stressors, a confidence in medical treatments, media silence, and publicity of dengue as a ‘virus jor.’ However, the respondents do believe that dengue prevention is possible with shared responsibility and collective action.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".