Omosessualita ed esclusione sociale nella donazione di sangue: \ndivieti permanenti e divieti temporanei come fattore di discriminazione
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around the world, as a consequence of the contamination of the \nblood supply by HIV and Hepatitis C and B in the early 1980s, public \nand private blood banks have required blood donors to complete a \ndonor health assessment questionnaire to identify various risk factors \nfor sexually transmitted diseases including, for men, the act of having \nsex with a male partner. In this latter case the policy provides for a \npermanent or temporary ban on donation. \nThis deferral policy, which aimed to protect recipients of blood \nand blood products, in recent years has been subject to criticism in so \nfar as this exclusion seems to be an unfair discrimination against gay \nmen on the basis of sexual orientation. At present, despite new technologies and recent testing procedures that allow the identification \nof contaminated blood, donor selection is still based on group \ncharacteristics (such as the MSM group: “men who have sex with \nmen”). \nAfter having analysed the two core judgments in the western legal \ntradition regarding the MSM deferral policy—namely: the decision of \nthe Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the case Canadian Blood \nServices v. Kyle Freeman and the decision of the European Court of \nJustice in the case Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la \nSanté et des Droits des femmes —, the essay enquires into what can be \nviewed as a reasonable response to the issue of discrimination. In \nparticular, the Author looks at two main subjects: 1) the adoption in \nat least two European countries (Italy and Spain) of a different \napproach based on an individualised donor assessment; 2) the proportionality \nof group refusal taking into account the negative stereotypes \nabout gay men and, in particular, the association of homosexuality \nwith AIDS.
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 | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.064 | 0.192 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".