Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that equality and equal access to health care are core Canadian values, the reality is that Canadians' health is overwhelmingly dictated by the unequal living conditions they experience – the social determinants of health. This chapter examines law as a tool for translating our understanding of health inequities into government action to address social determinants of health. The chapter provides a brief review of the findings and recommendations of some of the major Canadian reports in this area, followed by a review of international and domestic human rights guarantees that can be invoked to challenge health inequity in Canada. The final section examines the obstacles facing determinant of health-related claims, in particular, the continued reliance by Canadian courts on the outmoded distinction between positive and negative rights. The author concludes by suggesting that, rather than focusing on biomedical and lifestyle initiatives, social injustices must be addressed, and that moving forward on determinants of health requires action by all branches of government, including the courts.
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 | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".