Dignity and Equality: Lawâs Reasonable Claimant and Human Dignity under Section 15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of human dignity is an essential and inextricable element of equality rights. In Law v. Canada the Supreme Court united around the concept of dignity to determine section 15(1) cases. This test was abandoned in R v. Kapp, deciding that dignity was too abstract and subjective. This paper argues that the problems with the Law test did not come from the concept of dignity itself, but rather from the reasonable claimant test which focused on subjective feelings and legislative intentions. This paper presents an alternative conception of human dignity, which proposes that substantive equality should be a matter of equal concern based on two principles of human dignity: the principle of equal intrinsic value and the principle of personal responsibility. The analysis must be truly contextual, focused on the objective consequences of discrimination and the circumstances that create and foster inequality.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".