An ethical analysis of the mandatory exclusion of refugees and immigrants who test HIV-positive.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should persons claiming refugee status in Canada to escape danger or persecution be tested for HIV and refused asylum if they test positive? If refugees are admitted to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, should that compassion not extend to individuals who have the additional misfortune of being HIV-positive? Should persons applying for immigrant status in Canada in order to improve their well-being or enhance their economic prospects be tested for HIV and refused permanent residence if they test positive? Should HIV-positive applicants automatically be excluded on the presumption that they would cost Canadian society more than they could ever contribute? Those are the immediate ethical questions raised by proposals to screen prospective refugees and immigrants for HIV and deny admission to everyone who tests positive. Answering them requires that deeper background issues be addressed: What is the moral status of national borders? Is the sovereignty of the nation-state absolute, so that a grant of permanent residence is no more than a privilege that a nation-state may bestow or withhold for any reason? Do affluent countries have an obligation to help those who are worst-off in the world, or is whatever aid they choose to dispense merely a matter of charity? If prosperous countries have an ethical duty to provide foreign aid, may they admit refugees and immigrants as an alternative way of fulfilling that duty? And perhaps most difficult of all, how much national sacrifice may morality reasonably demand on behalf of people outside a nation’s borders?
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 | 0.058 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| 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".