The international right to health and Jordan's Principle: a comparative analysis of the substantive and procedural differences to Indigenous children’s right to health in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Jordan's Principle plays a significant role in facilitating Indigenous children's access to healthcare services, resources, and support in Canada. It is designed to prevent delays in federal-provincial jurisdiction disputes, ensuring that Indigenous children receive the care they need. The Principle has evolved from its strict restrictive eligibility criteria towards more open criteria, guided by the concept of substantial equality regarding Indigenous children's health. However, Canada's repeated failure to uphold its duty towards Indigenous children within the domestic legal framework of Jordan's Principle is a matter of urgent concern. This failure extends to the Medicine Chest clause of Treaty 6 and Canada's observance of international human rights treaties, particularly in protecting the right to health. Canada's international obligations to the right to health fall under several ratified treaties. This paper however, focuses on the following three: the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Despite being bound to international human rights mechanisms that mandate Canada to protect, respect, and fulfill the right to health, Canada has yet to guarantee such a right within its domestic legal system. This research will delve into Jordan's Principle to identify the substantive and procedural differences in addressing the right to health for Indigenous children through its legal scope and compare this with Canadian constitutional obligations and Canada's obligations through International Human Rights Law.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".