Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the current state of the law relating to the division of powers over health in Canada. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 do not expressly grant jurisdiction over health care. The federal government has shaped the Canadian health care system through the exercise of its spending power, most notably through the Canada Health Act. The scope of the federal criminal law power has been expanded to encompass hazardous products and drugs, environmental and reproductive health. The federal government has granted increasing powers to First Nations to regulate matters of Aboriginal health. Provinces are primarily responsible for the design, management and delivery of health care services, given their section 92 jurisdiction over “hospitals”, “property and civil rights”, and matters of a “local or private nature.” Together with provincial jurisdiction over hospitals, the property and civil rights power enables provincial regulation of health and hospital services, records, insurance and health professionals. Public health at the municipal level also falls within provincial jurisdiction. Parliament has delegated health powers similar to those of the provinces to the territorial governments. The range of issues mentioned in the recent First Ministers’ health renewal agreement reflects the shared jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments over health care. The need for cooperation between the federal government and the provinces in the area of health is as much a matter of constitutional law as it is of sound health policy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".