Health Communication for Displaced Populations| Physician Advocacy in a “Culture of Disbelief”: A Critical-Interpretive Study of Asylum Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugee studies scholarship has established that intense suspicion undergirds the process of refugee status determination, calling it, “a culture of disbelief.” Meanwhile, literature in medical anthropology has found that medical practitioners play a key role in the control and management of asylum seekers when they act as forensic evaluators. This study focuses on a group of physician advocates involved in a medical advocacy movement called Asylum Medicine (AM): an expert witness project that sits uncomfortably at the intersection of forensics and human rights. This article contributes to scholarship by revealing that the “culture of disbelief” extends onto medical authorities. Taking a critical-interpretive approach to health communication, I discuss how AM practitioners deploy a range of tactics including following legal scripts for objective behavior; anticipating opposition for their advocacy outside of expert-witness situations; and using the language of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder as shorthand to expeditiously respond to legal scrutiny. In a culture of disbelief that places medical objectivity in opposition to political advocacy, such tactics help AM practitioners execute an ethical stance where medical objectivity is political advocacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".