Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 25 of the Charter in Dickson v VGFN establishes an important precedent that may encourage the courts to reverse the jurisprudential trend against a proper interpretation of section 28, which is currently at issue in the Bill 21 case. I argue that both provisions — section 25 and section 28 — share key features, in that that although they do not establish freestanding rights, they are nonetheless of substantive import. Both provisions operate to condition, and even negate or block, the application of other sections of the Charter. In this sense, the tendency among commentators to characterize these provisions as either standalone rights guarantees or merely interpretative provisions is a false dichotomy. Indeed, a middle ground between these two options is precisely what the majority of the Court has now determined with respect to section 25, a reality that opens an obvious jurisprudential door to a similar reading of section 28.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".