Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projects of substantive legal equality tend to focus on public law, constitutionality, and legislative reform. But what potential does private law hold for these projects? In this article, I consider a critical reading of a recent case that suggests one answer. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bhasin v Hrynew (2014) recognized good faith as an organizing principle in Canadian contract law. By doing so, Bhasin has arguably destabilized traditional views of the contractual subject--with this decision, a more relational vision of the self is making its way towards the outer reaches of our commercial law. At the same time, the new doctrines set out in Bhasin are not clear, and they may yet crystallize as obstacles on this path. After sketching the hegemonic view of the self currently enacting contract law, I will recruit feminist theory to describe an alternate relational version. In the light thrown by these two subjects, this article will analyze the decision to determine what doorways it opens for further doctrinal development in order to ask how feminist theory makes possible a vision of legal doctrine more open to marginalized perspectives. Changes like the doctrinal change in Bhasin hold out the tantalizing possibility of both symbolic and material gains for oppressed communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".