Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author argues that the Supreme Court has not fulfilled the expectations of marginalized groups that government action and inaction would be subject to Canadian Charter scrutiny. Instead it has perpetuated exclusion, disadvantage and discrimination against the poor. By exploring the few poverty-related cases the McLachlin Court has heard over the past 10 years and those it has refused to hear, the author discusses how the Court has knowingly endorsed interpretations of the Charter that are injurious to the rights of poor people. The paper concludes by suggesting what is required of the Court in order for poor people's status as “constitutional castaways” to finally change: namely, recognizing poverty as a prohibited ground of discrimination under section 15; rejecting the notion that the Charter offers no positive rights protection to the poor; and taking seriously the access to justice concerns of people living in poverty.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".