Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author proposes an alternative approach to the test provided in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) for section 15(1) of the Charter. Currently, the third branch of Law test maintains that a claimant must show an impairment to her human dignity to establish discrimination and a violation of her equality rights under section 15(1). The author argues that the notion of basic human dignity can be understood as the more precise concept of personal autonomy and, further, that personal autonomy is fully explanatory of the harms or wrongs that arise from differential or unequal treatment. Accordingly, personal autonomy ought to be regarded as the central interest under the third branch of the Law test. The author then addresses how an autonomy-based approach affects the application of section 15(1), in particular with respect to the four contextual factors and the relationship between section 15(1) and section 1.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".