Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with the declaration that it “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it,” thus assuring the constitutional status of the rights enumerated. However, section 1 goes on to say that this guarantee is “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” thus recognizing that the rights are subject to “reasonable limits” that meet a certain standard. What the section fails to explain is the precise relationship between these two elements. In what way does the standard of “reasonable limits” interact with the rights guaranteed? There are two main answers to this question. The first holds that section 1 lays down a uniform standard that is “external” to the specific constitutional guarantees and only comes into play once an infringement of a substantive right has been found. We may call this the monistic approach, because it envisages a single standard applicable to the full range of Charter infringements, one that owes its character to the terms of section 1 itself. The second viewpoint holds that section 1 envisages a multiplicity of standards for assessing limits on Charter rights. These standards are tailored to the particular rights in question and form part of their effective definitions. In this sense they are “internal” to the substantive guarantees. Applying these standards is part and parcel of the process of determining whether specific Charter rights have been infringed. The standards all reflect the basic requirements set out in section 1, however, they are fleshed out with concrete criteria appropriate to the particular rights in question. We may call this the pluralistic approach, because it envisages a range of differing standards for judging limits on Charter rights. This paper weighs the relative merits of these two approaches and argues that the pluralistic approach is the one best suited to the heterogeneous character of the Charter and the rights it guarantees.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".