Law and Justice: Scott v. Canada and the History of the Social Covenant with Canadian Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 2012, supported by veteran advocacy group Equitas, Canadian Forces veterans of the Afghanistan campaign filed a class action lawsuit against the Federal Government. The case, Scott v. Canada, is named after lead Plaintiff Daniel Scott. In Scott, the Plaintiffs allege that under the recently enacted Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly known as the New Veterans Charter (NVC), many veterans receive less support than under the previous Pension Act. Further, they allege that the New Veterans Charter is a contravention of the ‘social covenant’ between Canadian citizens, the Canadian government, and past and present Canadian military members and their families.\nWhile the limited scope of this paper cannot determine if a legally binding social contract in fact exists, it will engage with the surrounding literature and suggest that there is a well-documented history of veterans enjoying a special relationship with the federal government and Canadian people in the form of legal and social entitlements. This paper will track the many reiterations of Prime Minister Robert Borden’s speech leading up to the creation of the NVC, while illuminating a historic tension between the influences of political, economic, and social policy trends and the upholding of a unique obligation towards those who have served this country militarily.\nThe covenant has always been contextualised by the morality of the times. But it is not just moral; it has legal aspects as well. The reason that veterans are due special treatment is intimately tied to their legal status as a member of the military with exposure to unlimited liability and regulation under the military justice system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.074 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".