Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the potential implications of section 7 of the Canadian Charter in the current health care reform debate, grounding its analysis in the facts and lower-court decisions in Chaoulli v Quebec (on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of publication). Recent health care system reviews have consistently emphasized the importance Canadians place on needs-based, equal and timely access to medically necessary services as a right of citizenship. At the same time, concerns about lengthening wait times in the public system have sparked calls for privatization as a means to enhance individual patient choice and to relieve pressure on the public system. Lower courts have generally been unwilling to consider the scope of publicly funded programs as justiciable under section 7 of the Charter. In the Chaoulli case, the lower courts in broke with this trend by considering whether section 7 rights were violated by Quebec’s ban on private insurance. The Supreme Court of Canada hearing in Chaoulli signals a major turning point for the Charter and for the Canadian health care system. Section 7 has great potential as a tool for generating more open, accountable and participatory decision-making in health care. However, a section 7 analysis runs the risk of focusing on individual autonomy and choice, rather than considering the systemic inadequacies and inequities within the current health care system. Instead of enabling privileged people to opt-out of a public system that benefits all Canadians, the author hopes that the Supreme Court will be sensitive to the equality and security of the person related interests of all health care users.
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 | 0.031 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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".