MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174075642 · doi:10.4000/eccs.3965

Between Rights and Rhetoric: Assessing the Government of Canada’s Public Health Policy on Opioid Injection Drug Use (2015-2019)

2020· article· en· W3174075642 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janel Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes canadiennes / Canadian Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricFraming (construction)Human rightsPublic administrationEnforcementPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Rhetorical questionPublic policyOpioidPublic healthLaw and economicsLawSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until 2015 Canadian public health policy on opioids was criticized for being rhetorical, lacking clear definition, and falling foremost on the side of enforcement. This article examines how the 2015 election of a new federal government introduced an alternative approach to opioid injection drug use, framing opioids as public health and human rights issue within Canadian policy. This article assesses the government’s commitment to a human rights approach to opioids and problematizes ambiguities in its approach. It raises questions about the politicized nature of the government’s strategy and whether Canada’s response remains caught between rights and rhetoric.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes canadiennes / Canadian StudiesSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207