Bibliographic record
Abstract
Racism is a hot and handy target.We recoil when accused of it, whether at the expense of Aboriginals, Jews, immigrants or Blacks, or in its more cultural anti-French, anti-English forms in Canada.Virtually no Canadian openly condones such beliefs or any acts based on them.Yet, we live in a country whose history remains full of words and deeds rooted in presumptions of racial superiority-inferiority.If we are to avoid leading unexamined lives, then the need for a definition of racism, in legal and in popular parlance, becomes all the more urgent.That is why James Walker 's cool, complex, vivacious reconstruction of these four case histories, analyzed within their well-documented social contexts, demands our full attention.And that is also why Wilfrid Laurier University Press and The Osgoode Society deserve Canada's gratitude for courageously publishing what some may think is an examination of our legal-judicial culture that is best left unacknowledged.Each case came before the Supreme Court of Canada and was resolved there.The two that could have been appealed further to England's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were not.Each dramatically illustrated Canadian racism in action.Two plaintiffs challenged legislated racism, in 1912 and 1955; and two cases arose out of custom-based civil actions of private discrimination, in a public establishment (1939) and in a restrictive, private property covenant (1950).If the issue in each case had been put to a referendum, Walker 's evidence leaves little doubt that a majority of Canadian voters at each case's time would have allowed the racism.The juridical path proved equally accommodating, because in each case Canada's highest court effectively left racism where legislation and common practice placed it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.668 | 0.477 |
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".