MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168127562 · doi:10.7202/043043ar

Does Section 7 of the Charter Protect the Right to be a Professional?

2005· article· en· W2168127562 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julius H. Grey

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterAppealLawCommissionSection (typography)Political scienceField (mathematics)SociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay deals with the controversy concerning the limits of sec. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Given that it does not bestow an untrammelled right to practise a profession, does this mean that all matters in the professional field are totally excluded ? In Wilson v. Medical Services Commission, the B.C. Court of Appeal left a role for sec. 7 in professional matters. The decision has been contested by at least one commentator. The main thrust of this essay is to defend Wilson.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207