Whose Right is it Anyway? Adjudicating Charter Rights in the Context of Multiple Rights Holders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the rights and freedoms prescribed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) protect aspects of life that rights holders engage in collaboratively, rather than in isolation. Our protection from unreasonable search and seizure extends to houses that we may inhabit with family members or roommates. Our freedom of expression and religion prohibits state censorship of novels co-written by multiple authors and prohibits restriction on religious rites practised as a community. Our freedom of association guarantees the rights of multiple members of a union to collectively bargain together. Our right to a speedy trial applies to the trial of multiple co-accused just as it does to the trial of an individual. Yet, while protecting collaborative aspects of life, the protections of the Charter apply to each of us, individually. As a result, it is inevitable in these contexts — where multiple rights holders possess claims “equal to and overlapping with” one another — that conflicts will arise.
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 | 0.094 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| 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".