R c Rémillard: La prochaine génération de défense des droit linguistiques au Manitoba (R V Rémillard: The Next Generation of Language Rights Advocates in Manitoba)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La protection et l'avancement des droits linguistiques au Manitoba semblent se faire, traditionnellement, par voie de contestation de contravention au Code de la Route. Comme l'a indique la Cour supreme du Canada dans l'arret R c Caron, il s'agit d'une voie souvent empruntee par les defendeurs des droits linguistiques minoritaires. L'arret R c Remillard s'ajoute a cette nouvelle generation de contestations visant la protection des minorites francophones et, plus particulierement, la mise en oeuvre des obligations linguistiques de la Ville de Winnipeg, selon les modalites de sa Charte constitutive. Ce resume d'arret fait le survol de cette decision en premiere instance et en appel, et analyse ses repercussion reelles et potentielles pour les plus de 30 000 residents francophones de Winnipeg. English Abstract: The protection and advancement of language rights in Manitoba appears to have traditionally been through a contravention of the Highway Traffic Act. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Caron, this is a route often used by minority language rights defenders. The Remillard decision is in addition to this new generation of protests aimed at protecting francophone minorities and, more specifically, implementing the linguistic obligations of the City of Winnipeg, in accordance with the terms of its founding Charter. This case summary provides an overview of this decision at trial and on appeal, and analyzes its actual and potential repercussions for the more than 30,000 Francophone residents of Winnipeg.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".