Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees, at section 16, that French and English are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada would appear to see little potential in the affirmation of Canada’s official languages. Several commentators agree, dismissing the guarantee as no more than symbolic. A different reading of section 16 is proposed here, embracing the promise of official bilingualism in Canada and outlining some of the consequences that follow from Canada’s constitutional commitment to this declaration. Among the different proposals outlined in the paper, it is suggested that the affirmation of French and English as the official languages of Canada is a prescriptive constitutional guarantee and not merely a declaratory one; that it mandates an expansive reading of some of the more topical language rights that follow it; that it fills in the lacunae necessary for a comprehensive official languages policy; and imposes on the legislature rather than the court the responsibility for articulating such a comprehensive policy In short, this paper explores how an aggressive interpretation of section 16 of the Canadian Charter can assist in promoting the promise of Canada’s commitment to official bilingualism.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".