Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author discusses the legal status of the foetus in the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tremblay v. Daigle. She examines the Court's finding that the foetus has no rights in the civil or common law and exposes the resulting difficulties with the assertion of foetal rights under the Charter. By drawing upon factums submitted by the parties and by anti-abortion intervenors in Daigle and Borowski v. Canada (A.G.), the author analyzes the scientific and moral claims propounded by opponents of abortion in support of foetal rights but finds them insufficient to establish a normative argument for the recognition of such rights under the Charter. The determination of foetal rights under the Charter would require the courts to answer the preliminary question of to whom Charter rights apply. The author examines the intent-based and purposive approaches to Charter interpretation to ascertain which approach would be better suited to a determination of the foetus' status under the Charter. She doubts that either approach would lead the courts to find that the foetus has rights under the Charter because there is no evidence of such an intention on the part of the legislature at the time of enactment of the Charter, and because a finding of foetal rights would substantially restrict the rights of women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".