Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the state limits a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), it must demonstrate that the limitation is justified in a free and democratic society. However, in certain circumstances a Charter right may also be limited by the valid simultaneous exercise of another individual’s rights. To address these situations, Canadian courts have developed a test similar to the Oakes framework that asks: First, whether the rights conflict or overlap at all; second, if that conflict can be overcome by alternative, accommodating measures; and, if not, third, whether the proposed approach strikes a rights-respecting balance. But when they reach the third stage there is a palpable risk that they will conduct an improper balancing inquiry wherein the effects of denying one right are weighed against protecting the other, rather than the effects of limiting the right(s). Instead, if the exercise of both rights creates a true competition which cannot be accommodated, courts must reconcile the claims: They must redefine the strength of each right relative to the other’s competing claims, to the broader factual matrix, and to the Charter’s interpretative guidelines, with the objective of facilitating the meaningful exercise of both rights. A balancing inquiry is only appropriate to the extent that it assesses whether the limitations (i.e., the results of the reconciliation analysis) are proportionate.
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 | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".