Socioeconomic Rights Adjudication in Canada: Can the Minimum Core Help in Adjudicating the Rights to Life and Security of the Person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violations of the minimum core economic and social rights (ESR) deprive society’s most vulnerable individuals and groups of the very resources that are essential to life and basic well-being. States have an obligation to ensure that meaningful remedies are available for such infringements. Though articulating a minimum core for ESR poses challenges, and critics of the concept find it beyond the institutional competence of courts, it remains an important tool for adjudication. The minimum core focuses the inquiry on the underlying goals of human rights: the protection of vulnerable and marginalized groups from the most serious forms of deprivation and suffering. It reinforces the indivisibility and interdependence—and, consequently, the justiciability—of all human rights. Using the examples of two recent cases considering the rights to adequate housing and health care in Canada, this paper suggests that the minimum core may have potential to serve as a useful interpretive aid to assess the content of rights to life and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter, in full respect of institutional boundaries, and in a matter that is consistent with Canada’s international human rights obligations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".