Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has led to some groundbreaking wins for Canadians. However, its life, liberty, and security of the person guarantees are not currently expansive enough to truly protect the interests of marginalized claimants. Furthermore, the equality protections guaranteed by section 15 of the Charter are often insufficient for marginalized claimants due to unsettled jurisprudence. In response to the need for novel claims to alleviate complex systemic problems, this paper advocates for the introduction of equality as a principle of fundamental justice underlying the section 7 test. The equality conceptualized at the heart of this argument is intersectional and therefore inclusive of the various barriers that individuals face when attempting to protect their Charter rights. With this definition in mind, the paper considers four Supreme Court of Canada decisions—PHS, Boudreault, Gosselin, and Carter—to examine recent equality trends beyond section 15 of the Charter and consider the pressing need for equality as a new principle of fundamental justice. Finally, the benefits of the proposed principle are weighed against potential judicial concerns in order to suggest that balance will be necessary to satisfy opposing interests. The overall message here is not that Charter litigation can fix every need, but rather that everyone should have fair opportunities to advocate for their protected rights.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.022 |
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".