MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125233476

Freedom of Expression and Location: Are There Constitutional Dead Zones?

2010· article· en· W3125233476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Slattery

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtCharterLawCommonwealthPolitical scienceFreedom of expressionGovernment (linguistics)Constitutional rightExpression (computer science)PhilosophyHuman rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the guarantee of freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter cover all locations without exception, or do some fall beyond its scope? The Supreme Court of Canada first dealt with this issue in the Commonwealth case in 1991, where it split into three distinct camps, each supporting a different approach. This split remained unresolved until the Montreal case in 2005, where the Court held that certain places — such as private government offices — are categorically excluded from section 2(b) because of their historical or actual function. However, the Court advanced this view only tentatively, in an explicit obiter dictum that played no role in the decision. In the recent Vancouver case of 2009, the Supreme Court has thrown caution to the winds and formally endorsed the Montreal approach. I believe the Court has taken a wrong turn on this point, one that leads down a blind alley. In this article I attempt to explain why and to suggest a solution.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases ConferenceSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207