Blood Donation and Institutional Trust: Risk, Policy Rhetoric, and the Men Who Have Sex with Men Lifetime Deferral Policy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie le processus de reconstruction de la confiance institutionnelle accordée au système d'approvisionnement en sang au Canada suite au scandale du sang contaminé. Nous examinons en particulier la politique d'exclusion indéfinie des hommes ayant eu des rapports sexuels avec d'autres hommes. Sur la base de nos entretiens avec des représentants du Comité consultatif d'experts sur la réglementation du sang auprès de Santé Canada, du Comité national de liaison, et de la Société canadienne du sang, ainsi que les organismes regroupant les receveurs de sang et de produits sanguins, nous souhaitons démontrer comment les activités de revendication concernant les droits, la discrimination, la science et les prises de risques contribuent à proroger cette politique. Nous examinons enfin le lien entre la pérennité de cette politique et la gestion des risques touchant la réputation. This article examines the process of rebuilding institutional trust in the Canadian blood system in the aftermath of the tainted blood scandal. Our focus is the policy of lifetime deferral from donating blood for men who have sex with men. Drawing on findings from interviews with representatives of Health Canada's Expert Advisory Committee on Blood Regulation, the National Liaison Committee, Canadian Blood Services, and blood consumer groups, we demonstrate how claims making about rights, discrimination, science, and risk contribute to policy continuity. We also examine the link between policy continuity and the management of reputational risk.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".