The Charter’s Revolutionary Impact on Gay Rights in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differing paces of gay rights progress around the globe, even between otherwise culturally and politically similar states, raises important questions regarding why this disparity occurs. Previous literature on the attainment of gay rights protections in Canada have highlighted the great impact had by the addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Constitution Act, 1982. Additionally, comparative studies have argued that it is the entrenchment of the Charter which has made the crucial difference between the pace of gay rights in Canada as opposed to other states, such as Australia. This paper argues that, despite not having been explicitly enumerated as a protected ground, gay rights have in fact been progressed by the Charter in three ways. This paper will first review the newly opened path for rights litigation brought forth by the Charter’s empowerment of the courts. Secondly, the conflicting effects that the litigious approach had on the gay rights movement will be considered, with specific note of its effect on the question of gay liberation or assimilation. Finally, this paper will discuss the ways in which the Charter’s impact is still of importance to ongoing and future gay rights cases concerning the balancing of opposing rights, particularly in its recognition of sexual orientation as having similar importance to other protected grounds.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".