Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishThe author sets out the judicial role that is appropriate in the analysis of rights claims under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This judicial role is appropriate, she argues, because it fulfills the specific remedial purposes of the Charter, offers the best reading of the Charter’s text against the background of its drafting history, and reflects the particular model of rights-protection that the Charter was designed to incorporate, i.e., the model embedded in post-Second World War constitutions and international rights-protecting instruments. While the Supreme Court of Canada initially adopted this judicial role (by applying purposive interpretation of the rights guarantees and only principled and normative application of the limitation clause), some judges later departed from it, preferring a more deferential approach for rights claims embedded in a socio-economic context. The author argues that this deferential approach is inappropriate for the Charter for a number of reasons. As a matter of constitutional interpretation, it lacks any foundation in the Charter’s political history, text or chosen model ofrights-protection.As a matter of constitutional history and theory, it imports as generic an outdated, misconceived, and parochial American constitutional paradigm. francaisL’auteur donne les grandes lignes du role judiciaire qui convient a l’analyse des revendications de droits en vertu de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. Elle estime que ce role judiciaire est indique parce qu’il repond au besoin de recours specifique de la Charte, qu’il constitue la meilleure lecture du texte de la Charte par rapport au contexte de sa preparation et qu’il traduit un modele particulier de protection des droits que la Charte, de par sa conception, doit incorporer, c’est-a-dire le modele ancre dans les constitutions et les instruments internationaux de protection des droits de l’apres-guerre. Bien que la Cour supreme du Canada ait d’abord adopte ce modele judiciaire (en appliquant une interpretation fonctionnelle aux garanties des droits et en adoptant uniquement une application de principe et normative de la clause limitative), certains juges s’en sont ecartes, preferant une demarche plus deferentielle pour les revendications de droits ancres dans le contexte socio-economique. L’auteur estime que cette demarche deferentielle ne convient pas a la Charte et ce, pour un nombre de raisons. En tant qu’interpretation constitutionnelle, il lui manque les fondements de l’histoire politique de la Charte, qu’il s’agisse du texte ou du modele choisi de protection des droits. En tant qu’histoire ou theorie constitutionnelle, elle est importante en tant que paradigme constitutionnel generique du genre paroissien americain, demode et peu judicieux.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".