Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of two high-profile scandals involving misconduct by university students on social media, this article explores the administrative and constitutional law dimensions of university discipline of online behaviour. Using the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Pridgen v. University of Calgary as a guide, the author examines how the characteristics of social media impact the jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive aspects of student discipline. Specifically, he explains that while universities may legitimately discipline students for online misconduct, their comments must amount to harassment of members of the university community, or threaten the learning environment. In addition, the author describes how social media raises the stakes for both accused students and victims, which militates in favour of broader and more extensive procedural fairness. Furthermore, he observes that the open and communal nature of social media interaction may lead to guilt by association, which is both unreasonable and unnecessary to combat online harassment. Finally, the author argues that a student's Charter rights are engaged in disciplinary proceedings involving social media activity, but this does not unduly interfere with the traditional autonomy of universities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".