Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author argues that the doctrine of has frustrated women's identities as citizens. Identifying exclusivity as the prevailing doctrine of and concurrency as the exception, the author shares her view that neither doctrine is acceptable because both divide women. Should judges decide they do not want the responsibility for dividing women, she claims, they should adopt a doctrine of based on that shapes women's identities as national and provincial citizens.The author reviews three Supreme Court of Canada decisions to illustrate what she labels as the Court using the doctrine of to shape women's citizenship. Each case was decided according to the doctrine of exclusivity. R. v. Westendorp, Bell Canada v. Quebec (Commission de sante et de la securite du travail du Quebec) and R. v. Morgentaler demonstrate the impact of the doctrine of exclusivity on the regulation of street prostitution, the protective reassignment of pregnant workers and the privatization of abortion services respectively. A particular focus is placed on a Supreme Court of Canada decision known as the EI case. The Quebec government unsuccessfully challenged, under the federal-provincial division of powers, the pregnancy and parental benefits provisions of the federal Employment Insurance Act. The doctrine of exclusivity, by precluding concurrency, prevented Quebec women from taking advantage of the superior benefits available under Quebec's legislation. Relying on federalism, the Court incorporated women as national rather than provincial citizens. The author then explains how the prevailing doctrine of conceives pregnancy as dividing women and describes what she calls the Women's Accord, which seeks to award jurisdiction to governments that have proven responsive to women's claims. She advocates developing a new, more encompassing doctrine of equity federalism that would allow any statute enacted by either level of government to be upheld as constitutional provided that the legislation benefits women or another group.
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 | 0.003 | 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".