Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott was an opportunity for the Court to delve into a number of difficult and sometimes conflicting issues. This paper argues that the Court missed an important and rare opportunity to attempt to reconcile freedom of expression and the right to equality by giving only superficial consideration to Canada’s history with the use of human rights bodies to address the problem of hateful expression. The experience, jurisprudence and academic commentary in this area all suggested a need to revisit the approach the Court took to hate speech provisions in the early days of the Charter. Nevertheless, the Court opted not to engage in an in-depth analysis of the issues. It is also argued that the Court’s constitutional reasoning fell short in terms of assessing concerns about the subjective nature of the notion of “hatred”, addressing the connection between the definition of hate speech and the goal of eradicating discrimination, and the question of the level of evidentiary support required to justify a violation of freedom of expression.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| 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".