Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decision that the right to security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, does not provide protection against reductions in social assistance, for instance, is a decision that claims to such protection are unavailable for adjudication by courts. Given these deficiencies, some of which are explored more deeply below, the decisions of lower courts holding poverty-related Charter claims injusticiable constitute one area of justiciability jurisprudence that stands to benefit from Sossin's analysis. ... At the outset of his consideration Sossin notes that while Canadian courts have generally been reluctant to invest Charter rights with social and economic content, in Irwin Toy the Supreme Court expressly refrained from foreclosing the possibility that s. 7 protects 'economic rights fundamental to human life and survival.' ... Since the reasoning in PUC is illustrative of the reasoning in lower court decisions holding poverty-related Charter claims injusticiable, this consideration also suggests that a reconstruction of this area of justiciability jurisprudence in accordance with Sossin's analysis and framework would point towards a confirmation of the justiciability of those claims. ... Ultimately, this suggests not only that an application of Sossin's framework and analysis would assist in improving lower court treatment of institutional capacity and legitimacy issues in this area of justiciability jurisprudence but also that it would point those courts towards holding poverty-related Charter claims justiciable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.011 |
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".