Criminalization and capture strategies in the HIV/AIDS assemblage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to ask how HIV/AIDS is arranged as a public threat in and through Canadian law, particularly in relation to transmission, and how strategies of capture extend the affective force of criminalization leading to poor health outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This is a conceptual paper with a focus on applying affect theorist Jasbir Puar's work on assemblage and debility. The authors use Puar's work to frame the conditions that persons with HIV/AIDS experience in the Canadian criminal justice context as debilitating. FINDINGS: The authors found that while HIV transmission is not itself a criminal act in the Canadian criminal justice context, activities where transmission is prevalent or possible have been criminalized, particularly in relation to nondisclosure of health status, sex work and substance use. Further, the authors found that when the activities associated with HIV transmission are criminalized, strategies of capture extend the affective force of criminalization first in the inadequate provision of health-care and pharma-care services, second in state resistance to implement harm reduction measure and third in punitive population management strategies. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Persons living with HIV/AIDS have historically experienced stigmatization, especially intersecting with neoliberal, white supremacist and heteropatriarchal axes of power. This paper uses assemblage theory to shore up how these relations operate in ways that close off possibilities, by constituting the HIV/AIDS assemblage as a criminal - rather than a health phenomenon. This paper, thus, holds Canada to account for debilitating a historically disadvantaged and multiplying marginalized population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".