Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author places R. v. Kapp in the context of the “reconciliation” jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada. Recognizing that at the rights stage, Charter rights may come into tension and that the relationship between rights and section 1 requires consideration of different interests and, in some cases, rights, the Supreme Court has developed the mes of reconciliation and balancing. Although the jurisprudence has not been consistent, generally it reflects an attempt at the rights stage to make the rights compatible with each other, that is, to reconcile the m. In contrast, the process under section 1 is one of balancing, with some rights and interests being given primacy over others. In practice, the outcome of the two approaches may not be very different; however, they do imposes different burdens and may seem to treat the significance of the rights at issue differently. The author suggests that Kapp, while giving much needed substance to section 15(2), appears to reject the the me of reconciliation and to adopt a more absolutist approach, both in the majority’s analysis of the relationship between section 15(1) and section 15(2) and in the minority’s consideration of section 25. In doing so, the author argues, the analyses appear to bring closure to what are in both cases complex issues and with respect to equality rights, the analysis seems to ignore the possibility that minorities among those disadvantaged groups benefiting from programs under section 15(2) might the mselves be even further disadvantaged by the programs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".