Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous efforts have been made to advocate for animals as beings that warrant legal rights, yet animal rights are minimally reflected in Canadian law. Although there have been incremental legislative changes that provide protection to some animals in specific circumstances, they have generally failed to advance the rights of farmed animals undergoing confinement and slaughter. However, if animals’ rights are to be legally recognized under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, significant reform would be required in all modern forms of animal use, including agriculture. This article discusses the prospect of animals receiving rights under sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, which codify the right to life, the right not to be subjected to cruel punishment, and the right to equal treatment, and examines the scope of protections that farmed animals could obtain with these rights. First, I discuss the current state of animal protections in Canada. Building on favourable precedents, I examine jurisprudence that supports sections 7, 12 and 15 rights for animals and conduct a doctrinal analysis under the assumption that these rights have been recognized. My findings demonstrate why modern animal agricultural practices, such as forcible confinement and slaughter, would be unconstitutional by infringing on animals’ proposed Charter rights. As a result, the Charter may have the potential to abolish most forms of farmed animal use.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| 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".