Reversal of Fortune: Litigating Health Care Reform in Auton v. British Columbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2004 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chaoulli v.Quebec (Attorney General) and Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General). at issue in Chaoulli was the constitutionality of legal restrictions on the private provision of health care; at issue in Auton was the constitutionality of British Columbia’s decision not to fund a specific treatment for autism within its public health care system. Chaoulli and Auton are the most visible manifestations of an increasingly common phenomenon: The use of rights-based litigation as an instrument of health care policy reform. This paper focuses on Auton as an example of legal mobilization. It explores three key questions about the phenomenon of planned, strategic litigation: How these cases enter the judicial system? Under what conditions are they likely to be successful? What is the impact of winning — or losing — on the broader policy environment? the paper concludes with some general comments on the use of litigation for health care policy reform.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it