Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is exclusively devoted to enquiring into the purpose of equality rights guaranteed by sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By first retracing the concept of equality from both a legal and philosophical perspective, the author comes to the conclusion that the juxtaposition of values of human dignity and social justice has brought on the most powerful change in the concept of equality. By invoking these two values in unison, authoritative writings, legislators and the courts have on the one hand, come to recognize the insufficiency of formal legal equality and thereby integrate the principle of substantial equality and have, on the other, conceived equality not merely with regard to individuals alone, but also by taking into account groups that society tends to neglect or dominate due to the existence of tenacious prejudices. The author then specifically examines the Canadian legal and socioeconomic context in search of the purpose of equality rights enshrined in the Charter of rights and shows that the addition of section 28 and the enumeration of grounds of discrimination to equality rights in s.s. 15(1) has as its purpose to provide additional protection to women and members of certain underprivileged groups. This special protection is indicative, in the author's view, of a clear constitutional choice in favour of a substantial conception of equality taking into account the collective dimension of discrimination.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".