Breaking the Law's Grip On Equality: A New Paradigm For Section 15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equality is an elusive and sometimes divisive concept.The Supreme Court of Canada has struggled with the interpretation of equality, tacking back and forth between periods of unanimity and division in its interpretation of section 15.The late 1980s was a period of unanimity in the Court's initial attempts to define the right to equality under section 15, most notably with Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews. 1 However, within a number of years that unanimity broke down as the Court fractured into at least three different approaches to the interpretation of section 15, set out most notably in the 1995 Equality Trilogy. 2 By 1999, the Court had returned to unanimity in the Law decision, 3 setting out a complicated multi-factor contextual analysis conceptually anchored in the idea of human dignity.However, the unanimity of Law proved to be short-lived.By 2002, Law was beginning to rupture at the seams, so that in 2003 we are back to where we were less than eight years ago: * Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Toronto.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".