And No More Shall We Shout: Noise By-Laws, Freedom of Expression and a Montréal Sex Club
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994, the City of Montréal attempted to deal with troublesome noises by enacting a bylaw dealing with the control of noise in the metropolitan area. The By-law became the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court of Canada case Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc. The comment focuses almost entirely on the Court’s s. 2(b) analysis. It first explores the science of noise and its control is fundamental to analyzing how sound might legitimately affect freedom of expression, before critiquing the Court’s assessment of noise as expression. It looks at how the Court provided a rejuvenated understanding of the relevance of the manner and place of communication in an analysis of expression by refining its approach from Commonwealth; however, the decision is disappointing for two reasons: the growing use of “factor” analysis in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence and the lack of sophistication in the basic s. 2(b) analysis. A call for a more nuanced approach to s. 2(b) is made.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
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.
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".