Reluctant Subjects: The Place of Gay Men in Canadian Media Discourse on HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation maps the struggles for gay menâ s inclusion into the national and global health imaginaries of HIV/AIDS over the past three decades. I order to do so, the author analyzes three instances of public discourse on vulnerability and risk, and their representation in the continuum between individual and collective victimhood and responsibility in the aftermath of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as reported in Canadian media. The central claim is that national and global health discourses are underpinned by the double helix of biopolitical and humanitarian imaginations, which I argue, require the production of morally worthy subjects for anchoring political and material responses to the pandemic. This is the case because biopolitical and humanitarian imaginations nurture specific ways of collecting, understanding, reporting, and responding to epidemiological data. Equally important, these ways of imagining morally worthy subjects nurture the symbolic, that is, political and cultural moves that inform priority setting and shape resource allocation for different populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".