Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central objective of this study is to examine the policy, legal, and constitutional implications resulting from the Chaoulli v. Quebec (2005 1 S.C.R. 791) both for the rights of Canadians within the scope of the publicly funded healthcare system and the configuration of that system. In examining the policy implications the thesis focuses on Quebec’s Bill 33, Ralph Klein’s “Third Way” proposal, and the development of national wait time benchmarks. In examining the legal implications the thesis focuses on the so-called ‘copy-cat cases’ triggered by the Chaoulli case, namely Flora v. Ontario, Murray v. Alberta, and McCreith and Holmes v. Ontario. In examining the constitutional implications of Chaoulli the thesis focuses on the expansion of the interpretation of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the elevation of timely access to healthcare to a Charter right. The study concludes with some observations regarding how Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system could evolve in the future and the role of the courts in the evolution of the system. It provides a warning that if appropriate and timely action is not taken by federal and provincial officials to minimize wait times in the publicly funded healthcare system, the implications of Chaoulli will continue to expand through future litigation and judicial decisions. One of the potential outcomes of such litigation and decisions is development of a two-tier or multi-tier healthcare system 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".