Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1985, it was largely unknown how the Supreme Court of Canada would respond to the Charter.1 At first glance, a drugstore’s right to be open for business on Sunday, selling groceries, plastic cups, and a bicycle lock, seemed an unlikely source of inspiration for the Court’s first pronouncement on the essence of freedom. Perhaps unexpectedly, the justices enforced the entitlement, finding that a Sunday closing law compelling a corporation to comply with the Christian Sabbath infringed section 2(a)’s guarantee of religious freedom.2 In doing so, R v Big M Drug Mart defined freedom as “the absence of coercion or constraint,” stating without equivocation that no one who is compelled “to a course of action or inaction” is “truly free”.3 In Justice Dickson’s considered view, coercion includes “blatant forms of compulsion”, such as “direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanctions”, as well as forms of indirect control.4 In plain and unmistakeable terms, Big M promised that, under the Charter, “no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or conscience”.5 * Professor Emeritus, Osgoode Hall Law School. I thank Kate Bezanson and Alison Braley-Rattai for includingme in this special issue of Constitutional Forum, and am grateful to Kate Bezanson for her comments onan earlier draft. I also thank Ryan Ng (JD 2021) for his valuable research assistance in the preparation ofthis paper. Finally, I note that I was a member of York University’s Free Speech Working Group in fall 2018.This paper does not in any way express the views of York University or the Working Group, which has longsince disbanded. 1Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2(a), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].2R v Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295, 18 DLR (4th) 321 [Big M].3Ibid at 336.4Ibid.5 Ibid at 337.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".