La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et quelques leçons tirées de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted as part of the Constitution Act, 1982 are couched in very broad terms. Comparative law provides useful guide-lines for ascertaining the probable ambit of the Charter. This article centers on the European Convention on Human Rights and on part of its case-law in areas where comparable solutions are likely to obtain in Canada. Thus, in spite of the generality of the words used by Deschênes J. in the case respecting minority language educational rights in Quebec, it is fair to assume that section 1 of the Canadian Charter will permit denials as well as limitations of rights, in exceptional circumstances, but that it will not apply to certain rights, such as the right not to be subjected to cruel treatment. More generally, the European Convention lays down the exhaustive limits that can apply to some rights and one may assume that no more restrictions would be permissible in Canada either. Finally, examples are given of cases which have been decided by the European Commission or the European Court of Human Rights and which pose problems likely to be raised under the Canadian Charter.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".