Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the recent case of R v Kapp, the Canadian Supreme Court reconsidered the relationship between affirmative action and the right to non-discrimination. Unlike the previous judgement of Lovelace v Ontario, the court decided that governmental measures with an ameliorative objective are not susceptible to an attack based on the right to non-discrimination. In essence, the court held that in order to be constitutional, affirmative action needs to satisfy a rational relationship test only. This deviates from the approach in Lovelace, where the court attempted to establish an integrated approach in order to facilitate the dual function of the equality clause to both allow remedial measures and to prevent discrimination. Kapp did not succeed in aligning the affirmative action clause with a comprehensive, inclusive and integrative notion of substantive equality. The judgement is important for South Africa because of the methodological and doctrinal similarity of the two countries’ equality law, as well as the textual resemblance between their respective affirmative action clauses and the fact that the Constitutional Court’s leading judgement in this respect, Minister of Finance v Van Heerden, closely resembles the reasoning of Kapp.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".