Salvaging the Welfare State? The Prospects for Judicial Review of the Canada Health & Social Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Health and Social Transfer (CHST), which came into force on April 1, 1996, contains no national standards relating to the quality of social welfare. The goal of this new transfer was to promote provincial flexibility in the sphere of social policy. The author argues that this flexibility may undermine the core of the Canadian welfare state. Given the preoccupation of the provincial and federal governments with devolution, welfare recipients must turn to the judiciary to determine the bottom line of the welfare state. The author explores the various constitutional and administrative law grounds on which the federal government's spending power under the CHST could be constrained. He concludes that while judicial review may serve as a useful catalyst for reexamining the normative foundation of the Canadian welfare state (as it arguably has in the U.S. context), current administrative and constitutional jurisprudence make a successful challenge of the CHST unlikely.
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 | 0.042 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".