Disease, Disparities and Decision Making: Mandatory HIV Testing of Prospective Immigrants to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude de cas examine les enjeux éthiques associés à la politique d'immigration du Canada et à la nécessité du dépistage obligatoire du VIH chez les futurs immigrants.L'attention est portée à l'examen médical de l'immigration officielle (EMI) parce qu'il s'agit d'un site clé au sein du système d'immigration.Les quatre enjeux suivants sont soulevés: les différences dans les demandes de connaissances officielles et l'expérience sur les activités qui se produisent (ou non) dans l'EMI lorsque le demandeur est diagnostiqué avec le VIH, le traitement exceptionnel du VIH au sein du programme d'immigration du Canada, l'organisation discursive de la politique de dépistage du VIH et les insuffisances dans la façon dont les pratiques spécifiques sont adoptées dans le traitement des demandes d'immigration faites par des personnes vivants avec le VIH.This case study explores ethical issues with Canada's immigration policy and the requirement of mandatory HIV testing of prospective immigrants.Attention is directed to the official immigration medical examination (IME) because it is a key site within the immigration system.The following four issues are raised: the differences in official and experiential knowledge claims about what activities occur (or not) in the IME when an applicant is diagnosed with HIV; the exceptional treatment of HIV within the Canadian immigration program; the discursive organization of the HIV testing policy; and, the inadequacies with how specific practices are enacted in the processing of immigration applications made by people living with HIV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".