PUBLICZNE PROTESTY ANTYABORCYJNE W ŚWIETLE ORZECZNICTWA SĄDÓW KANADYJSKICH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public Pro-life Protests in Canadian Case Law Summary The article deals with the legal standards applied in public anti-abortion protests in Canada. On the basis of an examination of Canadian case law, the author argues that the restrictions on pro-life protests are disproportionate with respect to the objective of ensuring safe access to women’s reproductive rights. The Access to Abortion Services Act and court injunctions are preventing pro-lifers from demonstrating in the vicinity of abortion clinics in defence of the right to life of unborn children. The degree to which pro-lifers’ constitutional freedom of speech is being infringed is in breach of the principles of the liberal state. The right to express opposition to abortion is also limited, although to a lesser extent, in other public places, such as street pavements and squares, university campuses and airport terminals. In the author’s view, imprisonment as the penalty for peaceful protest against the Canadian abortion law – for example, Linda Gibbons spent a total of over 10 years in prison for her pro-life activities! – is inherently incompatible with the essence of a “free and democratic society” as defined in Article 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".