Legal rights, constitutional controversies, and access to health care: lessons from Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a critical analysis of the use of legal claims to assert rights to access health care. Using Canada's system of public health insurance as an example, the paper discusses two significant Supreme Court of Canada cases in which claimants use legal mechanisms to influence health care reform. While one case seeks to expand the range of services covered by public health insurance, the other challenges the government "monopoly" over health care and advocates an expanded role for private health care. These legal claims play out in an adversarial setting where the focus is on the rights claims advanced by individual litigants. Yet, the outcomes of these cases involve broad implications regarding allocation of scarce health care resources and the very structure of the health care system. This paper discusses the benefits and limits of using legal claims in this context and also considers the role of courts in making decisions that may have the effect of constraining policy options available to government decision-makers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".