Substance Without Form: The Impact of Anonymity on Equality-Seeking Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the constructs of identity and within the context of equality litigation under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It begins with some discussion around the process for granting a litigation party's request for anonymity in civil suits. It considers the rationale for preferring that a party identify herself and argues the different considerations should apply in Charter litigation, especially under section 15. The article then examines three equality decisions: Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Falkiner v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services). It considers the complicated tension between the identification and anonymisation of claimants that is embedded in current equality analysis. The article concludes by arguing that if judges want to promote equality values in constitutional litigation, much more attention must be paid to the unique identifying features of equality claimants.
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 | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".