Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly three decades after the Supreme Court of Canada’s B.C. Motor Vehicle Reference (“MVR”), we still do not have a satisfactory the ory to explain the “principles of fundamental justice” protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The purpose of this paper is to identify three possible the ories, which emerge implicitly from Supreme Court of Canada case law. The first the ory is historical: A principle of fundamental justice is a legal principle that was historically protected or is deeply rooted in our legal system’s history and traditions. The second the ory is derivative: it posits that the principles of fundamental justice are to be found in the penumbra of section 7 and the other “Legal Rights” protected under sections 8 to 14 of the Charter. A legal principle is a principle of fundamental justice if it is necessary to give meaning and effect to the other principles of fundamental justice in sections 7 to 14 of the Charter. The third the ory is evolutionary: even where a principle is not protected under the first two the ories, the Court may recognize a principle of fundamental justice where the right to life, liberty or security of the person outweighs a competing governmental interest. Under this the ory, the principles of fundamental justice protect an evolving set of national values that command widespread contemporary support. Although none of the three the ories described in this paper can alone account for all of the principles of fundamental justice that have been recognized since MVR, together they account for most (if not all) of the disparate approaches to the principles of fundamental justice in Supreme Court of Canada case 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 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 | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".