Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms1 has provided many historically disadvantaged groups with an opportunity to have their rights acknowledged in the policy process. Indeed the Charter places a legal ob- ligation upon governments to ensure their leg- islative efforts respect the rights of historically disadvantaged groups. Some claim, however, that the Charter has produced activist judges who create rights for “special” interest groups rather than defer to Parliament. Others sug- gest Canada’s parliamentary system is not, on its own, favourable to all Canadians, and many groups and individuals are forced to the courts to make their interests and concerns known to government policy makers and legislators. The Court Challenges Program (CCP) was at the centre of this debate. This modest, federally funded initiative contributed to the protection and promotion of Canada’s official language mi- nority groups (OLMGs) for almost thirty years, and provided assistance to groups seeking to as- sert their section 15 Charter rights for almost twenty. The Court Challenges Program served as a last resort for many of Canada’s most dis- advantaged groups, but the Harper government recently took the position that the CCP was one of several “wasteful programs” not “providing good value for money.”2 Funding for the pro- gram was eliminated in 2006, silencing many of Canada’s most vulnerable groups.
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 | 0.034 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".