Cardboard Boxes and Invisible Fences: Homelessness and Public Space in City of Victoria v. Adams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in City of Victoria v. Adams. Specifically, the paper considers three interlocking themes that emerge from the decision: (1) the nature of “public space” in the context of homelessness; (2) the autonomy of homeless individuals; and (3) the meaning and value of the “homeless body.” With reference to each theme, the paper explores how the judgment in Adams grapples with the purportedly normative “Law and Economics”- type arguments put forth by the City of Victoria. By drawing on insights from Critical Legal Studies theory and feminist jurisprudence, the paper shows that Adams subverts and destabilizes certain “normative” perspectives about public space and homelessness. However, the paper goes on to argue that in its conflation of “cardboard box” shelters with the “invisible fences” envisioned by Justice Wilson in Morgentaler, Adams presents an ambiguous victory for anti-poverty advocates. The paper argues that the decision may serve to increase barriers for a broader and more progressive understanding of section 7 in the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".