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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".