Bibliographic record
Abstract
R. v. Kapp offers novel interpretations of both section 15(1) and section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court explicitly distances itself from the dignity test developed in Law v. Canada, invoking instead an approach based on Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, which asks simply whether the claimant has suffered disadvantage, prejudice and stereotyping. And for the first time, the Supreme Court reads section 15(2) as more than an interpretive aid to section 15(l), allowing that it can insulate certain ameliorative programs from any kind of scrutiny under section 15(l). The author argues that these two new developments can be seen as promising, provided that the Court offers a more expansive interpretation of the idea of "disadvantage" under section 15(1), and provided that it qualifies its highly deferential approach under section 15(2) in certain key ways. The author also criticizes the majority's reticence to engage with section 25 of the Charter in this case, arguing that their reticence stems from a mistaken view of the Court's role in cases that raise politically charged issues.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".