Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harm reduction approaches to drug use have been lauded for saving lives, being cost-effective, elevating pragmatism over prohibitionist ideology, being flexible in tailoring responses to the problem, and for their counter-hegemonic potential to empower people who use drugs. This article examines the legal system’s engagement with harm reduction, and, in particular, recent cases that incorporate harm reduction’s focus on empirical evidence in policy making into Canadian constitutional rights jurisprudence. It argues that harm reduction approaches in this venue may hold promise as a bulwark against some of the marginalizing features of traditional criminal justice approaches. However, the article also warns of a risk of inadvertently reinforcing the dominant discourse of criminalization and stigmatization as harm reduction’s features are embodied within the institutional frameworks of the state. Les approches visant a reduire les effets nocifs de l’utilisation de stupefiants ont ete vantees comme sauvant des vies, comme etant des solutions de rechange economiques qui placent le pragmatisme au-dessus de l’ideologie prohibitionniste, comme adoptant une attitude souple et offrant des reponses adaptees au probleme des stupefiants. Elles ont aussi ete vantees pour leur potentiel antihegemonique a donner des moyens aux utilisateurs de stupefiants. L’article examine l’engagement du systeme juridique par rapport a la reduction des effets nocifs, en particulier les cas recents qui integrent l’accent mis par cette approche sur les preuves empiriques dans l’elaboration de politiques a la jurisprudence constitutionnelle canadienne en matiere de droits. L’auteure avance que les approches de reduction des effets nocifs dans ce forum constituent peutetre un rempart contre certains des risques de marginalisation que presentent les approches de la justice penale traditionnelle. Elle met cependant en garde contre le risque de renforcer, par inadvertance, le discours dominant qui affirme que la criminalisation et la stigmatisation comme caracteristiques de la reduction des effets nocifs sont inherentes aux cadres institutionnels de l’Etat.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.149 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 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".