MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595793275 · doi:10.21991/c98w9t

Jurisdictional Justice, Democracy and the Story of Insite

2012· article· en· W1595793275 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Hester Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutePublic administrationLawDowntownGrassrootsPoliticsCharterGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceJurisdictionBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insite, North America’s first legally sanctioned safe injection site, opened its doors in 2003. It did so after several years of political struggle by a network of community groups in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), the neighbourhood it serves. The grassroots movement secured support at municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government. The latter expressed its approval by granting an exemption that protected Insite staff and patients from prosecution for possession of illegal substances under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA ). The remarkable political consensus in favour of Insite came apart in 2008 when the federal government, after the election of the Harper Conservatives, declined to extend the exemption. As a consequence, Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) and the Portland Hotel Community Services Society (PHS), the non-profit that operates Insite, along with two Insite clients, brought an action against the federal government in the B.C. Supreme Court. The provincial government intervened.2 The key arguments were that either the CDSA is inapplicable (and therefore the exemption is unnecessary) because primary jurisdiction over health resides with the province, or that the application of the provisions prohibiting possession in the federal statute violates the section 7 Charter rights3 of clients seeking treatment at Insite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0340.081
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0120.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207