LE DROIT A L'EGALITE: INTERFACE ENTRE DROITS INDIVIDUELS ET DROITS COLLECTIFS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first place, this article identifies the series of choices which led the Supreme Court to consider itself bound, under section 15 of the Canadian Charter, to take into consideration the pre-existing situation of groups to which the holder of equality rights belongs, and it emphasizes the importance of this consideration in the decision-making process. In this regard, on the one hand, it brings to bear the connection between certain choices of the Court and that issue. On the otherhand, the article specifies how and why the attention given by the Court to the law and to the pre-existing situation of groups respectively, when applying the standard of section 15 in context, will vary depending at which stage of the analysis it takes place. Secondly, the author examines the most important decisions where the Court balanced equality rights with other fundamental rights, with a view to identifying the Court's attitude with regard to the tension between the individual and collective rights at that stage, and to discern the reasons for its approach. The author is of the opinion that, in those cases, the Court appears to be more sensitive to the collective dimension of fundamental rights when it strikes the balance at the stage of section 1 rather than when it does so at an earlier stage. He suggests a number of considerations which may explain this attitude. One such consideration, which the author believes plays a predominant role is the constitutional concept of a `democratic society', which served as the basis, in principle, for the judicial deference shown in R. v. Mills.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".