Exploring the Mutual Constitution of Racializing and Medicalizing Discourses of Immigrant Tuberculosis in the Canadian Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on critical discourse analysis of Canadian press coverage of the immigrant tuberculosis problem, we expose the complex relationship between press-constructed discourses of immigrant health and current tuberculosis control policies in Canada. The focus of these policies is on screening and surveillance of immigrants rather than addressing social inequalities underlying the problem of immigrant tuberculosis. The biomedical focus and racializing character of current policies were reinforced in the Canadian press by depicting tuberculosis as a biomedical (rather than a social) disease imported to Canada by immigrants. The status of the immigrant body as health threat was produced by and through preexisting and mutually constitutive racializing and medicalizing discourses materialized in press coverage and tuberculosis control policies. Deracialization and demedicalization of health information disseminated in the press are potentially important factors to be considered when revising health policies that would address the socioeconomic and political factors that determine the health status of Canadian immigrants.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".