Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the current criminalization trend, the motivating question of this article is whether or not sexual transmission of HIV, without specific consent to the risk of such transmission, should be categorized as an assault or a sexual assault, and what difference that (re)categorization might make. In the argument that follows, the criminalization discourses in Canada and England and Wales that underpin and permeate the debates over HIV transmission will be explored. These jurisdictions have been chosen as examples of two regimes, at almost opposite ends of the criminalization spectrum, in which recent changes have set new benchmarks for criminal responsibility. One (England and Wales) has set rather narrow limits on the criminal law, whilst the other (Canada) has set far broader parameters, and lately has begun to include other sorts of cases (such as deception about the absence of birth control) as analogous to the HIV cases, drawing the boundaries of the criminal law even more widely. Beginning with a brief description of the law in each jurisdiction, this article analyzes the gendered and (hetero)normative role of consent in HIV nondisclosure offenses. Through a comparison with the law on sadomasochism, the article questions whether such offenses are rightly categorized as assaults or as sexual assaults. Following a critical engagement with the reasoning in recent Canadian jurisprudence in the area, the article will conclude by addressing the question of how future HIV transmission cases should be tackled. It is argued that in the absence of a policy that precludes criminalization of nondisclosure, the position in England and Wales is to be preferred.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".