The Public Law Consequences of Private Disputes: Néron v. CBC and the Law of Defamation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Néron v. CBC arguably sets a new low water mark for the protection of expressive freedom in the law of defamation. A finding of liability for defamation for a broadcast or publication that deals with matters of public importance necessarily involves justifying a limit on the constitutional protection of freedom of expression in a manner that respects an appropriate balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding expressive freedom. By following the approach of the Court in Hill v. Scientology and focusing on defamation as a private dispute, the majority in Néron loses sight of the public law dimensions of the required balance. Instead, it adopts a test for liability — “professional journalistic standards” — that is so ill suited for the protection of the public interest in expressive freedom that the Court is able to find liability in circumstances where the offending broadcast is both truthful and in the public interest.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| 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".