Bibliographic record
Abstract
A landmark case in Canadian administrative law, Baker set new standards for the review of administrative discretion and the content of the duty of procedural fairness. Baker's stipulations regarding procedural fairness, the duty to give reasons, and the requirement for decision makers to be alive to the best interests of children gave many Canadians a sense of hope that all immigrants seeking legal status— including those with Canadian-born children—would at least receive a fair consideration of their cases before being removed from Canada. Unfortunately, Baker created expectations that have not been fulfilled. The Supreme Court of Canada's failure to address the racism permeating Baker is symptomatic of the larger problem of Canadian society's ongoing failure to come to terms with the reality of systemic anti-Black discrimination. Black people cannot rely on the courts alone to put an end to systemic discrimination. The solution to this challenge may ultimately be political.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".