The Pluralist Right to Health Care: A Framework and Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health rights are a common but controversial legal phenomenon. Every country is signatory to a treaty that incorporates health rights, yet existing health rights do not fit easily into the traditional "claim right" model, and questions remain over how to theoretically incorporate health rights into domestic systems. The Pluralist Right to Health Care addresses this incongruity between theory and practice with an account of the right to health care that is both philosophically and practically sound. Utilizing a pluralist framework, Michael Da Silva argues that the right to health care is best understood as a set of claims to related ends: the goods necessary for a dignified existence, procedural fairness in determining what other goods to provide and in the provision of goods, and a functioning health care system. Through philosophical reasoning, analysis of relevant international human rights law, and a close study of the Canadian case, The Pluralist Right to Health Care provides crucial insight into the potential of law and policy to improve health care systems in Canada and beyond.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| 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".