Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of naming dignity as the touchstone of equality analysis in Canadian s. 15 jurisprudence has been laborious. Although human dignity has long been a value in our political culture, it has not enjoyed as much attention as some of the other “big” concepts that structure constitutional thinking. This concept must not only be more fully fleshed out, it must be brought to bear more perspicaciously on the analysis of equality claims. To that end, I offer a new interpretation of the Law test, reconfiguring it around three forms of indignity implicitly recognized by the case law as violations of equality rights. Most of the case law relies on two of these: basing legislation or state policy in prejudice, or in stereotype. There are, however, hints of a third form: denial of benefits and forms of participation in social life so important they can be said to (partly) constitute a life with dignity. The idea of dignity-constituting benefits extends the reach of equality law by focusing on the social institutions, practices, opportunities, and realms of participation that are integral to a life with dignity in our society. These sorts of benefits help to define social citizenship for us by singling out practices participation in which marks full membership in society. This analysis provides a language and conceptual framework for thinking through claims to social programs, including those designed to alleviate or eliminate poverty – those generally grouped under the heading of “second generation rights.” Building on the analysis in Eldridge and extending it to criticize the decision in Gosselin, I illustrate how s. 15 can be interpreted to protect access to such dignity-constituting benefits.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".