Risky subjectivities and ‘risk’ as governance among key and priority populations in Canada: a foucauldian discourse analysis
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".