Abortion in Canada and the Importance of Legal Reasoning in R. v. Morgentaler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to abortion has been a contentious and polarizing issue in Canadian society, prompting significant legal and societal debates over the years. This chapter aims to examine the legal reasoning employed in R. v. Morgentaler (1988), a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on abortion, and to evaluate its effectiveness in safeguarding access to abortion. Moreover, the analysis seeks to delve into the political and social implications inherent in this decision, examining the societal sentiments preceding this landmark ruling, the manner in which it was received within society, and the consequences arising from its implementation. As the extent of constitutional protection for individual rights appears to depend on the method of constitutional interpretation applied, the conducted analysis of the judicial reasoning and arguments presented in Morgentaler aspires to provide insights into the state of gender equality in Canada, and to facilitate a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that enable either the expansion or restriction of the abortion rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".