MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W327359422

Hopeful Result, Unclear Implications: A Comment on Canada (Attorney General) V. PHS Community Services Society

2013· article· en· W327359422 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
C. Tess Sheldon, Lorraine E. Ferris, Carol Strıke

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealLawSupreme courtPossession (linguistics)LegislationGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceBusinessPublic administration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction On September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its highly anticipated written decision on the constitutional implications of the federal government's refusal to renew an exemption to a supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Insite. (1) The exemption renewal had been sought to allow the facility to continue operating free from federal drug laws that prohibit illegal drug possession and trafficking. The SCC was called upon, among other things, to balance the competing interests of both public safety (prohibiting possession and trafficking of illegal drugs) and public health (support for drug users to reduce health issues associated with injection drug use). In a unanimous decision authored by its Chief Justice, the SCC ruled that failing to renew the exemption contravened the claimants' rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The Court ordered an immediate exemption for Insite so that it could continue operating as it was under its previous exemption. This paper considers whether and how the decision in Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society might impact on the operation of future Canadian supervised injection facilities. After a background section about Insite and Canada's constitutional framework and relevant legislation, we review the lower court decisions, in so far that they assist in understanding the SCC's decision. Next, we review the appeal decision highlighting two notable aspects of that ruling relevant to this paper. Last, we explore ideological opposition to supervised injection sites and the possible implications of the Insite decision on the operation of future supervised injection facilities. Background Insite opened in September 2003 as North America's first government-sanctioned supervised injection facility (SIF). Since then it has provided clients with a facility to inject their own controlled drugs or substances under medical supervision. Insite and its staff do not provide the drugs or substances. Health Canada approved Insite's mandate to provide health care information, counseling and referrals, including to a detox and drug treatment centre located in the same building. Insite operates in the Downtown East Side (DTES) of Vancouver, Canada under the authority of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). The DTES has a high concentration of those using drugs and is home to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Canada. (2) In the 1990s, the Province of British Columbia, through the VCHA, declared a public health emergency because the health situation for injection drug users reached levels. (3) Reports indicated exponential increases in fatal and non-fatal overdoses and increased rates of HIV/AIDS as well as hepatitis A, B and C infections. (4) Insite could only operate if it had an exemption from the federal criminal law, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), (5) which prohibits possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2003, the federal Minister of Health granted Insite a statutory exemption to operate, however, in 2008, the federal government did not extend the exemption. The goals of SIFs are to reduce drug-related harms (i.e., transmission of HIV, sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections; and overdose); reduce other injection-related harms (e.g., skin and soft tissue damage and infections); reduce public disorder; improve knowledge of drug consumption risks and behavioural risk reduction techniques; and improve access to and delivery of health, social, and crisis services. (6) SIFs also offer respite from street-life. (7) Canada's Constitution Act (8) assigns powers between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government has authority to enact criminal laws, including laws concerning the possession and trafficking of drugs. (9) The Constitution Act also grants the provinces exclusive authority over the establishment, maintenance, and management of health facilities. …

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0310.016
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0610.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law reviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207