Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Canadians have long held equal access to health care based on need, rather than ability to pay, as a core social value, successive Canadian governments have failed to ensure timely access to adequate health care for all. As a result, access to health care is increasingly being pursued as a right under the Canadian Charter. In this context, the author examines the facts, lower court judgments, and implications of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Auton v British Columbia (Attorney General) for future equality-based claims to publicly-funded health care. She suggests that the Court’s reasoning in Auton draws a false distinction between the comprehensiveness of the health care system – which is excluded from section 15 Charter scrutiny – and the universality of access to health services, which can be reviewed for discriminatory gaps in services. The author concludes that this formal approach to equality not only threatens the health care rights of Aboriginal people, people living in poverty, persons with disabilities, and other disadvantaged Canadians, it also fails to reflect the importance all Canadians attach to the principle of universal access to health care.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".