Bibliographic record
Abstract
This note discusses the nature and scope of protection which is and ought to be afforded to individual activity under s. 2(d) of the Charter through an analysis of two doctrinal models. Since the s. 2(d) jurisprudence is dominated by labour relations cases, which tend to deal squarely with the collective aspect of the right, there is very little case law and commentary on which to structure this debate. By analogizing from the Charter’s other fundamental freedoms, however, it is possible to craft a subjective model for s. 2(d) protection. As this note demonstrates, this model finds little support in the current jurisprudence, and its breadth is probably unworkable. By way of contrast, there is an objective model of association, which can be extrapolated from the core purpose of s. 2(d) as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Although principled and restrained, however, the objective model rejects any notion of a personal or subjective understanding of what constitutes association and in this sense it too restrictive. A possible blend of the two models, and the embrace of a qualified principle of content neutrality, may best deal with the concerns raised by each. It seems only inevitable that, at some point, an appellate court in this country will be confronted with a s. 2(d) claim which asserts, in a novel fashion, an individually or subjectively defined scope of protected association. The law as it currently stands is too modest in its protection of individual associational activity. Hopefully, a balance can be struck between the unworkable breadth of the subjective model and the harsh and stubborn restrictiveness of the current law. A qualified form of content neutrality may provide the right balance.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".