Risky subjectivities and ‘risk’ as governance among key and priority populations in Canada: a foucauldian discourse analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key and priority populations (KPP) within Canada, such as Two-Spirit, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer (2SGBQ+) men, Indigenous Peoples, Migrants, and African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) communities, experience disproportionate burdens of HIV and other sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs). Behavioral change paradigms predicated on the management of ‘risk’ linked to HIV often emphasize personal responsibility over socio-structural interventions, acting as a form of social governance. Utilizing data across four studies conducted with KPP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we conducted a Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) to elucidate understandings of ‘risk’ and the power differentials linked to ‘risk’ within the context of HIV and STBBIs. Given the disproportionate burdens of HIV among KPP within the prairie provinces in Canada, an analysis of discursive forms of power provides needed insight into the everyday lived experiences of marginalized groups as they maneuver healthcare infrastructure within a colonial setting. An FDA across four studies was conducted with two objectives: 1) to assess understandings of ‘risk’ as related to experiences with HIV and STBBIs and 2) to understand how notions of risk create social and healthcare related vulnerabilities. Our results indicate that the concept of ‘risk’ is understood as an identity marker and behavioral regulator within the lives of the participants. Risk is examined across two registers: (i) individual responsibility and self-governance and (ii) identity and discrimination. ‘Risky subjectivities’ for these populations challenge and perpetuate authoritative forms of knowledge within public health discourse.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it