MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125934066 · doi:10.1350/clwr.2010.39.1.0192

‘Free to Deal as He May Choose’: The Displacement of ‘Freedom of Commerce’ as a Necessary Condition to the Creation of Canadian Multiculturalism

2010· article· en· W3125934066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bob Tarantino

Bibliographic record

VenueCommon Law World Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtMulticulturalismCorporationCharterSociologyJurisdictionPolitical scienceLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1940s the Canadian legal system was one which seemed incapable of recognizing racial discrimination as a problem worthy of jurisprudential attention. The 1939 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Christie v York Corporation confirmed that the owners of a tavern were entitled to refuse to serve a black man; in the infamous case of Viola Desmond, the courts held that a theatre owner was within its rights to segregate seating on the basis of skin colour. Excepting marginal voices expressing concern, no significant protest was raised against the court decisions. Sixty years later, facts virtually identical to those found in the Christie case resulted in a large monetary penalty being levied against the offending bar owner—like an inversion of Christie before it, the decision was so congruent with contemporary sensibilities that it occasioned virtually no comment. Using the Christie and Desmond cases and the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as focal points, this paper traces the linguistic and legal changes which help explain such radically different responses from the legal system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueCommon Law World ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207