Terms of Entitlement: Is there a Distinctly Canadian “Rights Talk”?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. One of the most frequently mentioned, yet seriously understudied, changes brought to Canadian society by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is its influence on political debate and how citizens understand and treat rights. This empirical lacuna is significant because several scholars of Canadian politics have suggested that “rights talk” can have negative implications for political discourse, given that rights are too often presented in absolute, uncompromising terms. This article represents a first attempt to investigate this phenomenon. It presents a content analysis of the media's presentation of rights issues, and evaluates how rights are portrayed during coverage of Supreme Court Charter decisions. Résumé. L'un des changements les plus notables apportés à la société canadienne par l'adoption de la Charte des droits et libertés est son influence sur les débats politiques et, plus particulièrement, sur la manière dont les citoyens interprètent leurs droits. Ce changement important est toutefois très peu étudié. Cette lacune empirique est significative puisque plusieurs politologues canadiens ont suggéré que le «langage des droits» a des répercussions négatives sur les débats politiques, étant donné que les droits sont souvent décrits en termes absolus et définitifs. Cet article représente une première tentative d'exploration de ce phénomène. Il présente une analyse du contenu médiatique et évalue comment les médias dépeignent les droits dans leur couverture des décisions de la Cour suprême portant sur la Charte.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".