Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously reaffirmed the constitutionality of anti-hate human rights legislation. This paper explores the Court’s reliance on the pragmatic concept of “reasonableness” to narrow the proper scope of such legislation, in particular: when revisiting the definition of “hatred” under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code; when conceptualizing the “harm” caused by hate speech; when considering minimal impairment under the Oakes analysis; and when articulating the standard of review applicable to human rights tribunals. The author finds that, in all but one of the above areas, the Whatcott Court’s recourse to “reasonableness” is a principled approach to hate speech and to the Court’s own role in regulating expressive freedom. However, the author argues that “reasonableness” is a troubling standard by which to review tribunal decisions on the substantive question of whether specific communications constitute hate speech; this may be one bridge to “reasonableness” too far.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it