Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom on Canadian University Campuses: Liberté d’expression et liberté universitaire sur les campus canadiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Freedom of expression has long been a contentious issue in Canadian politics. While many are familiar with the basic workings of this principle, they may be unaware of the different approaches that can be employed to understand it at a deeper level. For example, these approaches may be heavily theoretical through the applications of political theory and freedom of expression works (by proponents like John Stuart Mill), while also looked at practically to understand how courts will interpret and define freedom of expression in Canada. Moreover, these different approaches can be used to look specifically at how freedom of expression is employed and affected on university campuses in Canada. The use of these approaches can also aid in understanding the effects [AS1] of university campuses that limit freedom of expression. Francais La liberte d’expression est depuis longtemps une question controversee dans la politique canadienne. Si beaucoup connaissent les rouages de base de ce principe, ils ne sont peut-etre pas conscients des differentes approches qui peuvent etre employees pour le comprendre a un niveau plus profond. Par exemple, ces approches peuvent etre fortement theoriques par le biais d’applications de la theorie politique et d’ouvrages sur la liberte d’expression (par des partisans comme John Stuart Mill), tout en etant egalement examinees sur le plan pratique pour comprendre comment les tribunaux interpreteront et definiront la liberte d’expression au Canada. De plus, ces differentes approches peuvent etre utilisees pour examiner specifiquement la facon dont la liberte d’expression est employee et affectee sur les campus au Canada. L’utilisation de ces approches peut egalement aider a comprendre les effets [AS1] des campus qui limitent la liberte d’expression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".