Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence under s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has identified the violation of human dignity as a key element, perhaps the key element in the determination of whether a legislative distinction is discriminatory. Although this move has been condemned as introducing a vague and indeterminate concept into equality jurisprudence and for being used to deny worthy claims, it is arguable that some substantive foundation like dignity is needed to make sense of s. 15. However, the Supreme Court has not yet done a very good job of explaining what dignity is and how we can identify its violation. This article aims to provide a fuller understanding of dignity as a legal value and explain the role is it capable of playing in defining the scope of equality rights. It identifies three forms of indignity implicit in the case law to date and interprets features of the Supreme Court's test for the violation of s. 15 through a dignity lens.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".