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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".