Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2019, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights published its study on the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada. The report recommended removing HIV non-disclosure from sexual assault laws in Canada. This constituted a welcome development for many HIV advocates. Yet other recommendations proved more controversial. In order to counter the exceptional targeting of HIV, the Committee proposed an offence for the non disclosure of all infectious diseases. This article uses the proposal to develop three arguments. First, the idea of creating an offence for all infectious diseases finds its origins in criminal laws dating back to the mid-nineteenth century. Second, the report relied on HIV’s exceptional criminal treatment to justify the creation of a new general offence. Third, the proposal reflects what Reva Siegel has called “preservation through transformation.” In the face of HIV advocates’ successful contestation of the terms of HIV criminalization, lawmakers distanced themselves from earlier penal justifications and developed new, seemingly more contemporary rationales to defend the status quo.\nEn 2019, le Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne de la Chambre des communes a publié son étude sur la criminalisation de la non divulgation du VIH au Canada. Le rapport recommandait de retirer la non divulgation du VIH des lois sur les agressions sexuelles au Canada. Cette recommandation a été accueillie favorablement par de nombreux défenseurs du VIH. Cependant, d’autres recommandations se sont avérées plus controversées. Afin de contrer le ciblage exceptionnel du VIH, le Comité a proposé d’ériger en infraction la non-divulgation de toutes les maladies infectieuses. Cet article s’appuie sur cette proposition pour développer trois arguments. Premièrement, l’idée de créer un délit pour toutes les maladies infectieuses trouve son origine dans les lois pénales datant du milieu du XIXe siècle. Deuxièmement, le rapport s’appuie sur le traitement pénal exceptionnel du VIH pour justifier la création d’une nouvelle infraction. Troisièmement, la proposition reflète ce que Reva Siegel a appelé « la préservation par la transformation ». Face à la contestation réussie des termes de la criminalisation du VIH par les défenseurs de la cause, les législateurs ont pris leurs distances par rapport aux justifications pénales antérieures et ont élaboré de nouvelles justifications, apparemment plus contemporaines, pour défendre le statu quo.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".