Human Right to Healthcare: Equitable, Evidence-Informed Policy on Refugee Healthcare in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study/Objective: To explore how the notion of "vulnerable populations" is understood and used in the policies and practices of international humanitarian organizations, and to consider its ethical implications for crisis-affected populations and humanitarian actors.Background: Humanitarian organizations have responded to evidence that particular groups may be differentially affected in crises by adapting their policies and practices to better promote equity.Women and disabled people are two "vulnerable populations" who have been the focus of recent efforts.We wish to examine how the concept of "vulnerability" is understood and operationalized in humanitarian health assistance, and its ethical implications.To what extent does the concept of vulnerability promote equity (eg, through improved access to services), and to what extent does it generate other kinds of ethical concerns for recipients and humanitarian actors?Methods: We propose to: (1) interview humanitarian health workers and policy makers about their expectations and experiences concerning assisting vulnerable populations, and (2) to review relevant humanitarian guidance documents and policies.We also (3) propose to interview aid recipients, especially women and the disabled.We will use the theoretical lens of "epistemologies of marginalization" to examine how humanitarians understand and operationalize vulnerability, and consider possible implications for humanitarian actors and aid recipients.Might constructions of vulnerability threaten the moral agency of recipients and perpetuate notions of otherness?Might they obscure background conditions of justice?Might they forestall other models of relations between humanitarian actors and crisis-affected populations?How do responses to one category of vulnerability shape responses to others (eg, how do responses to gender shape responses to disability)?Results: Pending.Conclusion: Our study will inform humanitarian policy and practice to better support all people in need of assistance.It will contribute to the evidence base on the efficacy and ethics of interventions targeting "vulnerable populations" and inform future policy and practice for humanitarian actors.
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 | 0.040 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".