Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the relationship between the Charter and administrative law has been somewhat rocky. The unique nature of administrative decisions has been perceived by some jurists as requiring an unnecessarily nuanced approach to Charter issues in the administrative law context, resulting in problematic decisions untethered from jurisprudential Charter reasoning and the text of the Charter itself. The most notable of these cases are Doré v Québec and Loyola High School v Québec (Attorney General). The legacy of these decisions, sometimes referred to as the Doré/Loyola framework, regrettably established that on judicial review, administrative decisions need only demonstrate a proper balancing of implicated Charter rights or elusively-defined Charter values with relevant governmental objectives, and that these decisions will only be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness rather than correctness. The recent decision of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal in AB v Northwest Territories (Minister of Education, Culture and Employment) (“AB”) highlights how far down a slippery slope of constitutional misinterpretation the framework has allowed the law to slide.
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 | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".