A comparative jurisdictional analysis of the criminalisation of the sexual transmission/exposure of HIV: a new legislative framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the criminalisation of the sexual transmission/exposure to HIV by drawing upon the legislative and judicial precepts of the criminal justice systems \nof England, Canada and the United States of America. The criminalisation of the transmission/ exposure is contentious within these jurisdictions and the aim of this work is to address these fundamental issues by investigating the disparate approaches to inculpation. \n \nTo be able to achieve this aim the study uses a comparative analysis that sets out the extant position of the law in each country and extrapolates theoretical underpinnings to criminalisation. This denotes that the defendant’s awareness as to their sero-status; the effectiveness of a complainant consenting to the risk of contracting the virus; and the type of conduct that is criminalised must be investigated. Further discourse as to alternative defences that may be accessible to the defendant is provided. \n \nThe work will examine the solutions to these issues from the other jurisdictions, and highlight the similarities and differences within each countries approach. It is argued that the law relating to the criminal transmission/exposure to HIV within all of the jurisdictions is generally deficient. None of the jurisdictions provide criminal laws that accede, in their entirety to philosophical, doctrinal or theoretical solutions to the problem. This study is unique as it draws upon the multiple jurisdictional approaches, as well as philosophy, theory and doctrine to provide the optimal pathway to legislation. Thus, the thesis proposes a legislative framework that is adherent to established liberal understandings of criminalisation. It also contributes to the understanding of the criminalisation of the transmission/exposure to HIV by offering a de novo legislative framework.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".