Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E. is a clear example of the manipulability of legal doctrine and the power of political objectives. Well-established legal principles should have lined up neatly to support a favourable outcome for the equality rights claimants in NAPE, whose pay equity entitlements were, by the admission of the government, ‘‘erased’’ for a period of three years. This did not happen because the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the circumstances in NAPE were too exceptional to bear the application of the established rules. The Women’s Court of Canada decision in NAPE could have simply demonstrated how the established legal doctrine could and should have been applied to uphold the equality rights claim. However, this approach would have been too thin. It would not have done justice to the broader questions of substantive equality and government accountability that became more explicit as the case travelled up the judicial ladder. A related issue was whether to approach NAPE as ‘‘a section 15 case’’ or as ‘‘a section 1 case.’’ In the end, it was decided that this was not an either/or question. The outcome for the equality rights claim in NAPE was primarily determined by what the Supreme Court of Canada decided in relation to section 1 of the Charter, not what it decided on section 15. However, the Supreme Court’s section 1 decision was very much influenced by its approach to section 15. The Women’s Court of Canada decision tries to resist constructing section 15 and section 1 as separate legal containers and, instead, endeavours to connect them. The decision to incorporate a full section 15 analysis was easier than the task of doing it, however. In NAPE, a section 15 infringement was found at all levels of judicial and tribunal consideration. This finding made it more challenging to frame an alternative approach to section 15 and to demonstrate concretely the shortcomings of Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). From the broader perspective of women’s social equality, some of the story of sex-based wage discrimination and its relation to women’s economic inequality was included. The decision also articulates principles for using international law, a discussion that is often glossed over in Supreme
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".