MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121131019

Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat: An Arbitrary Approach to Discrimination

2016· article· en· W3121131019 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Jennifer Koshan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnanimityConstitutionalityArbitrarinessSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceNoticeDisadvantageContext (archaeology)Prejudice (legal term)CharterSociologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unanimity of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat facilitates an examination of the Court’s latest restatement of the proper analytical approach to equality claims under section 15(1) of the Charter. In determining the constitutionality of a First Nation’s educational requirement in its election code, the Court’s welcome shift from a narrow focus on prejudice and stereotyping to a more flexible and contextual inquiry into historic disadvantage was confirmed. However, their failure to take an intersectional approach to grounds and their grant of a significant role to arbitrariness in their understanding of discrimination were detrimental to Taypotat’s claim and may be problematic for future equality challenges. The Court’s decision ultimately rested on a number of evidentiary deficiencies, raising issues about the ability of courts to take judicial notice of social context evidence and whether statistical proof is needed to establish adverse effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases ConferenceSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207