MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413819913

Criminalization confusion and concerns: the decade since the Cuerrier decision.

2009· article· en· W2413819913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Symington

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminalizationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ConfusionSupreme courtCriminologyLawPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person living with HIV could be found guilty of aggravated assault if he or she did not disclose his or her HIV-positive status and exposed another person to a "significant risk" of HIV transmission. The notorious case--R. v. Cuerrier--involved an HIV-positive man and two women with whom he had intimate relationships involving unprotected intercourse. At the time the ruling, which imposed full legal responsibility for HIV prevention on people living with HIV/AIDS, raised many questions. Ten years later, many of those questions remain unanswered. In addition, a host of new issues have been added to the debate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.038
Scholarly communication0.0210.018
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0220.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207