MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219607269 · doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v39i2.5464

Freedom of Expression, Commercial Expression and Tobacco in Canada

2008· article· en· W2219607269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueVictoria University of Wellington Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpression (computer science)Supreme courtFreedom of expressionLawFlexibility (engineering)Value (mathematics)DemocracyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyHuman rightsEconomicsComputer scienceManagementPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of freedom of expression protections to commercial expression is a matter of some debate. Some commentators suggest that commerciality robs expression of the value inherent in more politically, culturally, or socially motivated expression.In Canada, the Supreme Court has found that commercial expression is entitled to protection. The affirmation of these rights subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” does, however, allow for the commercial nature of expression to be weighed as against the value of allowing such expression.The Supreme Court’s approach to freedom of commercial expression, as exemplified by the tobacco cases, indicates that this right is not given the same degree of protection as non-commercial expression. However, the Court’s approach and refusal to introduce a specific test allows flexibility in application, and provides for the possibility that, in some cases, protections may be broad enough to place commercial expression on a par with non-commercial expression.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictoria University of Wellington Law ReviewSame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207