Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial reviews medicinal cannabis litigation in Canada's superior courts between 1998 and 2015. It reflects upon the outcomes of the decisions and the reasoning within them. It identifies the issues that have driven Canada's jurisprudence in relation to access to medicinal cannabis, particularly insofar as it has engaged patients' rights to liberty and security of the person. It argues that the sequence of medicinal schemes adopted and refined in Canada provides constructive guidance for countries such as Australia which are contemplating introduction of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic option in compassionate circumstances for patients. In particular, it contends that Canada's experience suggests that strategies calculated to introduce such schemes in a gradualist way, enabling informed involvement by medical practitioners and pharmacists, and that provide for safe and inexpensive accessibility to forms of medicinal cannabis that are clearly distinguished from recreational use and unlikely to be diverted criminally maximise the chances of such schemes being accepted by key stakeholders.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".