Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been 20 years since section 15 of the Charter came into force. In this paper, Professor Hogg traces the “winding course” of judicial interpretation of section 15. The Supreme Court of Canada has changed the ground rules every few years as the judges have journeyed along that winding course. It has been a serious problem for any commentator foolish enough to try and keep a treatise on constitutional law up to date. Professor Hogg discusses the difficulty of applying a guarantee of equality focusing on cases from Andrews to Law and cases subsequent to Law and states that Law has unfortunately supplanted Andrews as the leading case on section 15. The element of human dignity, Professor Hogg points out, effectively sidelines the role of section 1. Section 1 at least had the advantage of providing very carefully structured legal tests and put the burden of proving each step of the way on government not the claimant. The element of human dignity that is now apparently firmly embedded in the jurisprudence is vague, confusing and burdensome to equality claimants. However in unusual cases section 1 justification may still uphold a discriminatory law.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".