Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explains how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Council for Refugees repudiates decades of section 7 jurisprudence in the immigration law context and mandates that it be realigned with the section 7 jurisprudence outside of it. The paper sets out how Courts in the immigration context continue to apply decades-old jurisprudence which unilaterally declared that section 7 cannot be engaged by a person’s removal from Canada. It also explains how the Courts incorporated a remoteness barrier into the causation analysis which further prevented section 7 scrutiny of government action in the immigration context in all but the final stages of a person’s removal. While these trends have long been entrenched in immigration jurisprudence, this paper sets out how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Council for Refugees compels lower Courts to reject the imposition of these dated barriers and realign the section 7 analysis applied in the immigration context so that section 7 of the Charter can finally be applied consistently to everyone.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".