Les rapports difficiles entre la liberté d’expression et ses limites raisonnables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur passe en revue la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême en matière de liberté d’expression depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la Charte et constate que l’on n’a pas craint d’élargir considérablement la portée de ce concept. Cet activisme judiciaire repose néanmoins sur des fondements théoriques fragiles et empreints de contradictions. Une analyse serrée de certaines décisions permet d’abord de constater que l’article 2b) de la Charte ne protège pas toutes les activités expressives sans égard à leur contenu; d’autre part, il n’est pas tout à fait exact de prétendre que la raisonnabilité d’une restriction à cette liberté fondamentale doit s’apprécier sans égard au type de discours en cause. En conclusion, l’auteur propose de départager les arguments qui tiennent à la nature même de l’expression de ceux qui s’analysent en termes de justification en s’appuyant sur un principe qui colle davantage au texte et à la structure de la Charte.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".