“Part of Being Canadian Is Having Access to Healthcare”: Framing the Boundaries of Healthcare Deservingness for Non-Citizens through the Interim Federal Health Benefits Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In June 2012, the Canadian government cut eligibility to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) for some refugees and refugee claimants. Analysis Drawing from news sources, this article examines the ways different actors—politicians and advocates—framed deservingness and undeservingness to support or contest the IFHP cuts. Deservingness refers to the ways value or worth is allocated to differently situated individuals based on their social location. Conclusions and implications The authors explore how deservingness is understood through a lens of citizenship, focusing on immigration status, understandings of “illegality” and criminalization of non-citizens, and varying versions of “Canadian values.” They argue that different interlocutors participated in the drawing and redrawing of boundaries of social and moral worth related to both presence in and access to social goods in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".