Addiction and Heroin-Assisted Treatment: Legal Discourse and Drug Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the arguments put forth over a 3-day period at an injunction hearing, Providence Health Care Society v. Canada, held March 13–15, 2014 in Vancouver, British Columbia. The plaintiffs sought broad interlocutory relief from the Court for the provision of prescription heroin if requested by their physicians. This article fills an identified gap in scholarship by analyzing the civil Charter challenge, including the notice of civil claim, injunction court transcripts, judgment, and individual plaintiffs’ affidavits. We draw from Canada’s unique history of drug prohibition and critical drug research to contextualize our analysis and findings. We argue that the lives of people using criminalized drugs, such as heroin, are affected by legal realms that produce ideas about heroin, addiction, and criminality that ultimately impact public health policies and treatment initiatives.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| 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".