MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593467951 · doi:10.26522/ssj.v10i2.1421

Generating Ambivalence: Media Representations of Canadian Transplant Tourism

2016· article· en· W2593467951 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lindsey McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Social Justice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismMainstreamAmbivalenceOrgan donationScarcityOrgan transplantationNewspaperRepresentation (politics)TransplantationPublic relationsSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyMedicineLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses transplant tourism as one facet of the international organ trade. It asks whether mainstream media portrayals of Canadian transplant tourist journeys convey messages supportive of stronger efforts to stop extra-territorial organ purchase. A postcolonial theoretical approach using Mary Louise Pratt’s study of travel writing is employed to conduct a discourse analysis of Canadian media and cultural representation from 1988 to 2015. The public learns that transplant tourism is “bad” but understandable, and either not our problem or a symptom of another problem. Three forms this message takes are: the broader organ trade is a distant and insurmountable problem; transplant tourists are innocent victims; and, resolution of a larger, national organ scarcity problem will end transplant tourism. I conclude that the media generates ambivalence towards the issue of transplant tourism. Reader attention is drawn away from health outcomes and human rights, especially of organ providers – reasons Canada might do more to stop transplant tourism – towards the challenges faced by transplant tourists, with the effect of eclipsing public discussion of whether and how to stop Canadians from buying organs in other countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Social JusticeSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207