Section 2(b) Advertising Rights on Government Property:\nGreater Vancouver Transportation Authority, ANew Can\nof Worms and the Liberty Two Step?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court's recent decision inVancouver Transportation is problematic for two reasons. First, the majority adopts an analytical framework for determining whether a claim triggers the positive rights Dunmore/Baier analysis, which means that policies restricting expressive rights based on groups rather than content could be less likely to fall within the scope of section 2(b). A better approach would be to characterize section 2(b) cases based on the nature of the claim rather than the nature of the restriction and to apply the positive rights Dunmorel Baier criteria only where the claim is for an audience with the government or access to government funding. Second, the Court's section 1analysis provides sparse and problematic guidance for addressing the now opened can of worms that is sure to arise from the government sale of private advertising in a legal context that draws the censorship line above controversial content but below offensive content.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".