B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Assn. v. British Columbia (Attorney General): Mandatory Registration Rules, and Limits on Third Party Political Expression under the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The laws regulating political participation by third parties have long been constitutionally controversial in Canada. Third parties are generally understood to include all individuals, groups and organizations, other than political parties and their affiliated entities such as riding associations. Rules relating to political expression and, especially, third party participation in provincial and federal elections have frequently been before the courts. The central constitutional dilemma posed in these cases is relatively straightforward. Any non-trivial restriction on third party political expression violates section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and harms a form of expression, namely political speech, which the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly said is at the “core” of the guarantee of free expression. Despite the constitutional costs imposed on third parties, however, regulating their political expression is necessary in order to ensure broader goals such as the integrity of the election and the creation of a level playing field so that politics is not simply dominated by moneyed interests.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".