Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author examines the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) and considers to what extent this decision represents a step backwards for women's equality in the poverty context. She concludes that the Gosselin case demonstrates yet again that the feminist critique of the Law test and its emphasis on human dignity, is well founded. In this 20th anniversary year of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms equality rights provisions, she underlines the importance of continuing to insist that governments recognize and implement the guarantees set out under section 15, and that courts interpret and enforce these rights in a manner consistent with their original objectives. anniversaire de l'article 15 de la Charte canadienne, l'auteure souligne l'importance de continuer à insister pour que les gouvernements reconnaissent et appliquent les garanties d'égalité prévues à l'article 15 et pour que les tribunaux interprètent ces dispositions et veillent à leur mise en œuvre en conformité avec l'intention qui initialement a motivé l'enchâssement de cet article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".