Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been more than a decade since Justice Arbour’s dissenting judgment in Gosselin, the first and only Supreme Court of Canada judgment recognizing positive rights under section 7. The jurisprudence that has developed in the intervening years presents some challenges to pursuing such a claim today. Yet the author offers the view that because of the special vulnerability of children, their capacity for development and the state’s treatment of children in other contexts, recognition of positive rights for children is consistent with Canada’s legal/political traditions, current laws and jurisprudence. Childhood, the refore, may well be the “special circumstance” necessary to push positive section 7 rights forward under the Charter. In light of the growing disparities in wealth in Canada, and the link between poverty and the ability to meet a child’s basic needs, such an outcome is urgently needed in the interests of justice to ensure that all children eventually have an equal opportunity to be involved in society’s most important institutions, which ultimately control distribution of wealth, goods and opportunity.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| 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".