Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper posits that access to justice is both a large multifaceted concept with broad policy implications and also a constitutional commitment central to our legal system. It contends that the process of refining and giving contemporary meaning to the legal principle of access to justice is obfuscated by debate surrounding the broader policy concept because the duality plays into concerns over the respective roles of governments and the courts to ensure access to justice, which brings the justiciability of access to justice claims into question. The woeful state of civil legal aid programs across Canada is attributable in part to the confusion arising from this debate. The author proposes that a way forward can be found by disassociating the broad policy concept of access to justice from the narrower legal and constitutional principle. It is only this narrower meaning that gives rise to legal obligations and hence is within the purview of the courts. Three approaches to defining the constitutional core of access to justice are briefly explored: (1) access to the courts and the rule of law; (2) access to counsel and the right to a fair trial; and (3) access to justice and the equality benefit and protection of the law. Finally, the paper discusses Canadian Bar Assn. v. British Columbia as an example of a case that offers the opportunity to search for and further refine the constitutional core of access to justice if it can be untangled from the web of justiciability concerns.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".