MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202481079

Call for Action: Provinces and Territories Must Protect our Genetic Information

2021· article· en· W3202481079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leah Hutt, Elaine Gibson, Erin Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Call to actionEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA), passed by Parliament in 2017, seeks to protect Canadians’ genetic information. The GNDA establishes certain criminal prohibitions to the use of genetic information and also amends federal employment and human rights legislation to protect against genetic discrimination. However, we argue that the GNDA alone is insufficient to protect Canadians given constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government. Areas of profound importance relating to genetic discrimination are governed by the provinces and territories. We identify three key areas of provincial/territorial jurisdiction relevant to protection against genetic discrimination and outline the applicable legislative environments. We identify problems with the status quo and set out the gaps and limitations of relying solely on the GNDA. We conclude that provinces and territories need to amend their human rights, employment, and insurance legislation to ensure comprehensive protection of Canadians’ genetic information.\nLa Loi sur la non-discrimination génétique (la Loi), adoptée par le Parlement en 2017, vise à protéger les informations génétiques des Canadiens. La Loi établit certaines règles pénales interdisant l’utilisation des informations génétiques et modifie également d’autres lois fédérales en matière d’emploi et de droits de la personne afin de protéger contre la discrimination génétique. Cependant, nous soutenons que la Loi seule est insuffisante pour protéger les Canadiens étant donné les limitations constitutionnelles des pouvoirs du gouvernement fédéral. Des domaines d’une grande importance relatifs à la discrimination génétique sont régis par les provinces et les territoires. Nous identifions trois domaines clés de compétence provinciale/territoriale pertinents pour la protection contre la discrimination génétique et décrivons les environnements législatifs applicables. Nous identifions les problèmes liés au statu quo et exposons les lacunes et les limites du recours à la seule Loi sur la non-discrimination génétique. Nous concluons que les provinces et les territoires doivent modifier leurs lois relatives aux droits de la personne, à l’emploi et aux assurances afin d’assurer une protection complète des renseignements génétiques des Canadiens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0230.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.008

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207