Providing Health Care but Receiving None in Return: An Expanded Right to Health Analysis of the Live-In Caregiver Program of Canada (1992-2014)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s robust universal, single-payer healthcare system has long made socio-economic rights (SER) advocates in the United States envious of our neighbors to the north. Fundamental human rights tenants echo in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including non-discrimination and individual freedom, yet the “right to health” has not been constitutionalized at the moment this essay was written.1 While Canada has a strong track record of signing international human rights conventions and guaranteeing the right to health for permanent citizens, there remains a gap in the health rights of migrant workers, even in regular situations or formalized citizenship pathways. Ever-changing legal qualifications for permanent residency and arbitrary three-month waiting periods for healthcare coverage to come into effect make securing the right to health for even the most highly desirable workers—namely, healthcare workers in private households—a thorny task. The motto for Canada’s paradoxical commitment to the socio-economic rights of migrant workers might be, as Toronto doctors Ritika Goel and Michaela Beder aptly articulate in the title of their medical journal op-ed, “Welcome to Canada...but don’t get sick.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".