Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Quebec Court of Appeal has recently decided that commercial speech is protected by s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by s. 3 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This article tries to mesure the significance of this judicial extension of the constitutional protection of freedom of speech. Canadian case-law is examined as well as the more important decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. An attempt is made to reveal the conflict injudicial values and political philosophy that underlies the debate over commercial speech. This conflict revolves around the constitutional relationship between law-makers and the courts on matters of social and economic policy. The suggestion is made that commercial speech is an intellectual and legal vehicle for the political objectives of the New Right. The author concludes that whatever the proper distribution of constitutional authority on the subject may be in the U.S., a different social configuration in Canada should lead our courts to a very careful consideration of the American cases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.010 |
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".