THE RIGHT THING OR A HUMAN RIGHT: RIGHTS, LIBERTIES AND HEALTHCARE REFORM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent framing of healthcare as an issue of rights has invigorated public opinion, and given renewed relevance to the opposition between negative and positive liberties in the contemporarydebate. The right to healthcare resources can be interpreted as stemming from “positive” liberty and the right to opt-out or be “left alone” as “negative freedom” (Berlin). In this paper, we will describe how the current American debate on healthcare – with its use of the arguments for and critiques of“negative” liberalism - and has its foil in the trajectory of Swedish healthcare reform. Alluding to both public debates and some of the formative philosophical and political texts surrounding the issue, we will describe how both Swedish and American thinkers have used these two liberalisms to elevate healthcare above mere policy debate to the level of human rights, and how canonical texts are mobilized to justify claims about healthcare. Our goal is to invite further conversation on what is undoubtedly a critical and complex crossroads in the political landscape of both Sweden and the US.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".