Bibliographic record
Abstract
This judgment of the Women's Court of Canada takes issue with the reasons, but not the result, in the Supreme Court of Canada's treatment of R v Kapp. It concludes that the Supreme Court was wrong to accept the argument that there was discrimination on the ground of race. Discrimination under section 15 has three required parts: differentiation on an enumerated or analogous ground that is discrimination. Noting that the meaning of “race” is little discussed in jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the judgment demonstrates that the arguments made in Kapp and the nature of the impugned regulations do not support a conclusion of differentiation on the ground of race (although they may support differentiation on the ground of Band membership). If Kapp is not a case in which the appellants had all of the elements of a section 15 claim, then it was not an appropriate case in which to provide guidance on the doctrine of section 15(2) and section 25. Sections 35 and 25 resist the racialization of Indigenous peoples in Canada, and together with case law, they offer a solid constitutional basis—indeed, requirement—for the recognition of Indigenous sovereignties. Kapp, though it ultimately provides a safe haven for ameliorative programs, ignores the constitutional position of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh (Burrard), and Tsawwassen Nations affected by the regulations at issue. The Supreme Court should not have considered section 15(2), as there was no prima facie case under section 15(1) of discrimination on the basis of race, and the claim should have failed on that basis.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".