Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the implementation of vaccine passports has been controversial. From the outset, critics alleged that vaccine passports would infringe various Charter and human rights protections, including the right to mobility, the right to “life, liberty and security of the person,” the right to equality and the rights to freedom of religion and conscience. Meanwhile, privacy advocates made ominous predictions about the creation of a “show-me-your-papers” society. This chapter systematically explores these critiques, showing that vaccine passports have not, in fact, posed any grave threat to civil liberties or privacy rights. Arguably, this legal and moral alarmism around vaccine passports had the unhelpful effect of discouraging public deliberation in the lead-up to the second wave of the pandemic—forcing governments to scramble with implementation at the eleventh hour. The chapter ends with some reflections on the responsibilities of legal commentators and public intellectuals in the midst of a fast-shifting public health emergency.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".