Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ Donor Policy Canada: Valuing Inclusion Organ, cell, and tissue transplantation has become a common worldwide procedure as knowledge, technology, and skills have developed this area. Policies relating to all aspects of organ, tissue, and cell donation have emerged countries aroimd the world response. An issue that has generated debate is how to ensure sufficient supply of organs to meet the growing demand while ensuring that risks to patients are minimized and quality of care is maximized. In attempting to incorporate these conditions into its proposed new standards, Canada has produced a policy that contains exclusionary criteria directed at men who have sex with men (MSM). The position taken this paper is that the criteria of minimizing and ~naximizingq uality can be achieved without this exclusionary impact. Health Canada's standards Safety of Human Cells, Tssues and Organs jor Transplantation (2009) are reviewed using a theory framework that comprises components of the risk society with a cultural/symbolic theoretical lens. The risk framework provides insight into reasoning behind the donor exclusionary criteria an attempt to maximize safety. This facilitates a critical investigation into the underlying forces and meanings inherent within the document. This framework is also used to illustrate why the current Health Canada standards are redundant and discriminatory. Subsequently, alternatives are proposed to the existing cell, tissue, and organ do~~a t ioponl icy statements that address minim~zation of but reduce the exclusio~~ariryn pact on MSM by taking into account existing technology. This paper critically focuses on the policy position taken by Health Canada. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, reflexivity related to Canadian transplant policy assists filling a gap the literature. Reflexivity encourages awareness to the personal, social, cultural and political processes that influence and shape policy. In their overview of Ulrich Beck's conception of the society, Lash & Wynne (1992) describe, following Beck that in order for societies really to evolve inodernization must become reflexive. Secondly, reflexivity is often excluded from the social and political interactions between experts and social groups over modem risks, because of the systematic assuil~ptiono f realism science (4). This paper strives to engage and encourage reflexivity the area of Canadian transplant policy. As Cal~adiavia~l ues and legal principles deter discrimination based on group membership; this case MSM, alternative approaches to maximizing safety organ transplantation without the promotion of discrirnination need to be considered. (Les politiques visant les dons d'organes au Canada : valoriser l'inclusion) Les crit2res d'exclusion qui ciblent les hornmes ayant des rapports sexuels avec des hornrnes 21 l'e'gard des dons d'organes continuent h Etre renforcQ duns les politiques visant les dons d'organes et les transplantations au Canada. Ayant pour cadre la the'orie des risques, les politiques en vigueur au palier fe'de'ral pour les dons d'organes et les transplantations sont analyse'es en visant particulierement la cornposante d'exclusion. Les politiques fe'dirales en vigueur peuvent faire l'objet de re'visions qui minimisent les risques et garantissent la quulite' des soins, tout en pe'conisant l'inclusion sociale. Pour que les politiques canadiennes visant les dons d'organes et les transplantations soient h la hauteur des connaissances et de la technologie actuelle, l'exclusion collective h l'e'gard des hornmes qui ont des rapports sexuels avec &S hommes pour ce qui est du don d'organes ne'cessite une re'vision
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".