Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide ongoing HIV and Hepatitis B surveillance in residential First Nations alcohol and drug treatment centres in British Columbia, Canada. All clients enter-ing the centres are offered confidential viral testing as part of an education pro-gram on sexually transmitted diseases. Participation is voluntary and approxi-mately two thirds of clients choose to be tested. Information about risk factors for communicable disease and immunization status is not recorded. The testing pro-gram began in January 1992. As of September 2000, 2,345 people have been tested for HIV. Nine tested positive, giving a prevalence of 3.8 per 1,000 (95 % confi-dence interval: 1.3 to 6.3 per 1,000), lower than among all British Columbians who choose to be tested (8.5 per 1,000). Also, 2,166 people were tested for hepatitis B surface antibody, 23 % of these were positive, 10 % were positive for hepatitis B core antibody (indicating prior infection with hepatitis B). Seven clients (3.2 per 1,000; 95 % CI: 0.8 to 5.6 per 1,000) were positive for hepatitis B surface antigen and are therefore presumed to be chronically infected. The prevalence of hepatitis B markers was intermediate between what has previously been found in high risk groups and that found in the general population. (Int J Circumpolar Health 2002; 61;
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it