Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that after the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation, in R. v. Kapp and R. v. Cunningham, of section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an exemptive provision pursuant to which a government law or program with an ameliorative purpose may be “saved” from further Charter scrutiny, section 15(2) is now best understood as constituting an internal limit on the right to equality. Given that section 15(2) supplants section 1 of the Charter when an ameliorative law or program is at issue, the contours of the section 15(2) limit should be defined according to the general framework of proportionality review, akin to the test for section 1 established in R. v. Oakes. A government hoping to rely on section 15(2) to insulate an impugned law or program from section 15(1) would the n be required to justify not only the purpose of an ameliorative law or program, but also its means and effects. Importing proportionality review into section 15(2) would mitigate the risk that the exemptive interpretation of section 15(2) will be used to “save” ameliorative laws or programs that rely on underinclusive means or have discriminatory effects on marginalized groups or individuals.
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 | 0.033 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".