Intersectoral Public Action between Immigration Policy and the Fight against Aids in France and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how two countries, France and Canada, with different political systems address a common problem that public migrants living with HIV/AIDS from countries where this disease is endemic. Public action in these countries is at the intersection of two public policies that may seem contradictory (immigration and the fight against AIDS). Despite three obvious differences: first in the fight against AIDS (constraint and control/cooperation and inclusion), then immigration policy (selective immigration/immigration generalized) and finally AIDS treatment among foreign (screening foreign/non-screening), the analysis of public action shows that there are common trends between the two countries on the direction of policy towards migrants living with HIV/AIDS. These are manifested in part by the reduction of the rights granted to the public due to the restrictions of immigration policies that affect the field of public health and secondly by humanitarisation public action towards foreigners with serious diseases. Public management of this problem in countries thesis lies at the intersection of two public policies which may sccm contradictory (immigration and fighting against AIDS). DESPITE three obvious differences: first in the fight against AIDS (coercion and control/ cooperation and inclusion), Then in immigration policy (selective immigration/Widespread immigration) and treatment of AIDS Among Foreigners (non screening/screening aliens), the analysis of public Action That shows there are common trends Between the two countries in managing aids Among migrants. These Occur on the one hand by the reduction of the rights Granted to thesis hearings due to the restrictions of immigration policies affect the field of That public health and from the “humanitarianisation” of public policies targeting Foreigners suffering from serious Illnesses: such as HIV/ aids.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".