Examining public health nurses’ documentary practices: the impact of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure on inscription styles
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
In Canada, there has been a rise in criminal HIV non-disclosure cases where public health records have been subpoenaed for use in police investigations and criminal court proceedings. In particular, public health nurses’ written counseling notes, originally collected for the purposes of creating a record of treatment and a plan of care, have been used as evidence against their clients. This article engages sociologically with this issue by analyzing whether and how this criminal law development has affected public health nurses’ reasoning and documentary practices in settings of HIV post-test counseling sessions. The paper argues that variations in nurses’ inscription styles result in part from considerations about the criminal law, which indicates the influence of ‘medico-legal’ relations that connect health care and the criminal justice system. Implications for nursing practice and the broader goals of HIV prevention are discussed. Data are drawn from interviews with thirty nurses working at four public health units in Ontario.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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