Translating the Conflict over Trinity Western University's Proposed Law School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In early 2017, Trinity Western University (TWU) received leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in its ongoing battle for its law school’s accreditation by the Law Societies of British Columbia (LSBC) and Upper Canada (LSUC). These appeals will mark the conclusion of a legal dispute encompassing broad, fundamental questions concerning the appropriate balancing of rights to freedom of religion with the protection of equality rights within the context of the Law Societies’ statutory mandates to act in the public interest. The author contrasts TWU’s Evangelical perspective which views individual religious beliefs as fundamentally intertwined with the public good, necessitating the public expression of these beliefs with the courts’ commonly held view that religious views may be present in public, as long as they are kept private. Major highlights the tensions and ambiguous arguments in these decisions to offer a critique of the perception of the law as objective truth, and to emphasize the significant role that social context plays in the development of rights jurisprudence. Ultimately, the author advocates for the use of the law as a means of “translating” these differences, allowing the parties to resolve ambiguities and ultimately find common ground. In a novel analytical approach to this controversial litigation, the author frames TWU and the Law Societies as members of a shared community and suggests that it is most helpful to view the relationship between these actors as being rooted in friendship, rather than competition. Despite their seemingly irreconcilable legal positions, the author advocates for the issue of accreditation to be resolved through dialogue and mutual consideration.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".