Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Throughout history, blood has been embedded with powerful and paradoxical connotations. In the last decades, a more rational conception based on scientific knowledge has emerged, portraying blood as a "disenchanted" and utilitarian object, hence more apt for donation between strangers. This study aims to examine blood's representations in Quebec, Canada. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected in four separate studies carried out between 2009 and 2011 in Quebec. A total of 234 1 to 1½ hour-long semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with: 184 donors (including lapsed donors) and 50 nondonors; 106 women and 128 men from a variety of age groups eligible to donate; 76 minority informants from Asian, Middle-Eastern, Latin American, African, and Caribbean origins; and 158 informants from the majority society. RESULTS: Many respondents donated blood because it was a "useful" substance. Others associated blood donation with a gift of vitality, strength, and energy. Some stressed the irreplaceable nature of blood, its rarity, and preciousness. It can also be associated with worrisome representations and seen as "bad" or carry infections: as a fluid, it has the ability to cross troublesome body boundaries. CONCLUSION: This overview of contemporary representations of blood in relation to blood donation in Quebec illustrates that though this substance might be disenchanted for many, it still maintains its mysteriousness for others, which underpins the importance of its social, cultural, and religious representations that can potentially lead to useful avenues in improving donor recruitment and retention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".