Survol des droits linguistiques : Enfin de vrais droits linguistiques au Canada (A Look at Language Rights: True Language Rights in Canada at Last)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1987, la Cour supreme du Canada a statue dans l’arret Societe des Acadiens que les droits linguistiques enchâsses dans la Charte canadienne des doits et libertes etaient le resultat d’un compromis politique et, donc, devaient etre interpretes de facon restrictive. A toutes fins utiles, cette decision a mis en suspens les revendications des minorites linguistiques. Quatre decisions recentes des tribunaux s’ecartent de cette approche restrictive. L’auteur analyse les quatre decisions en question, le Renvoi relatif a la secession du Quebec, R. c. Beaulac, Arsenault-Cameron c. Ile-du-Prince-Edouard de la Cour supreme du Canada ainsi que Lalonde c. Commission de restructuration des services de sante de la Cour superieure de l’Ontario, dans le but de demontrer que nous entrons finalement dans une epoque oz les minorites linguistiques peuvent invoquer les recours des tribunaux judiciaires pour assurer leur statut au sein de la federation canadienne.In 1987 the Supreme Court of Canada held in Societe des Acadiens that language rights were entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the result of a political compromise and that these rights, therefore, should be given a strict interpretation. This decision had the effect of bringing about a suspension of court challenges by language minorities. Four recent court decisions move away from this restrictive approach. The author reviews these four decisions, Reference re Quebec Secession, R. v. Beaulac, Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island of the Supreme Court of Canada as well as Lalonde v. Health Services Restructuring Commission of the Ontario Superior Court, showing that finally we are entering an era where language minorities can resort to courts of justice in order to ensure that they enjoy the status to which they are entitled within the Canadian federation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".