Putting Health To Rights: A Canadian View on Global Trends in Litigating Health Care Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of the world’s constitutions now include mention of a right to health or health care. Will the courts be effective at championing the health rights of vulnerable populations? Courts recognize that health systems embody complex tradeoffs, and have struggled to draw a principled line of deference to government decision-making. Worldwide, one finds courts drawing this line in various ways, depending, among other things, on their country’s constitutional aspirations, the \nmaturity and internal accountability of its health system, and broader currents of social mobilization. For their part, Canadian courts have been very restrained, conceptualizing health rights largely in negative terms – overturning restrictions on access to abortion, medical marijuana, and so on – while refusing to recognize any positive duty on the part of government to provide particular health services. Could Canadian courts do more, without tumbling into overreach? The paper ends by sketching options for a more robust and progressive approach to adjudicating health rights claims.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".