MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Liberalism, Law and Social Rights: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Era of Welfare State Restructuring

2022· article· en· W4220985550 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sirvan Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Law and Public Policy (IJLAPP) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLawLiberalismSocial equalityPolitical scienceSocial rightsRetrenchmentState (computer science)Welfare stateLaw and economicsSociologyHuman rightsPoliticsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite expanding the boundary of formal equality, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is conducive to rationalizing liberalism's conception of the role of the state. Contrary to the hasty expectation of social rights advocates who hoped that they can utilize the Charter to advance social rights in Canada, the Charter has in fact been interpreted by the courts in a manner that justifies the subordination of the social rights to the vicissitudes in the economic sphere, which has historically been ingrained as an overriding tenet of liberalism. In line with a long-held liberal principle that the real threat to individual liberty emanates from the state, not private property relations which are indeed the basis for socio-economic inequalities, the Charter interpretations by the courts have, in fact, reinforced a legal rationalization for the neoliberal-motivated forces of welfare state retrenchment which are reflected in the courts’ refusal from imposing any positive obligation on the state to provide the basic means of subsistence for citizens as a matter of right. Thus, judicial interpretation of the Charter reflects and reinforces the nineteenth-century liberal tenet that the judiciary can restrain but cannot compel the state to take positive actions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Law and Public Policy (IJLAPP)Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207