The Differential Treatment of Adolescents as a Principle of Fundamental Justice: An Analysis of R. v. B. (D.) and C. (A.) v. Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the Supreme Court’s characterization of adolescence in R. v. B. (D.) and its application of the criteria established by the Court as to what constitutes a principle of fundamental justice. The author also discusses implications of the decision on a subsequent case which focused on the nature of adolescent decision-making in the child health and welfare context, C. (A.) v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), and addresses the evidentiary aspects of the Court’s taking judicial notice of the psychological underpinnings of its decision in both cases. Ultimately, both cases establish a relatively consistent view of adolescence as a trajectory toward adulthood, but not quite there yet, and limits autonomous rights and adult responsibility accordingly. Arguably the Court is less consistent in its application of the legal rules to arrive at this conclusion. The author concludes by suggesting that child rights advocates be wary lest the Court’s classification of adolescents as “other” leads to the erosion of their entitlement to other rights under the Charter.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".