Reframing dialogues: toward a multidimensional approach to Charter dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis' primary objective is to develop a richer and more satisfying framework for understanding the development of rights found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It uses as a starting point the notion of "Charter dialogue" developed in recent Canadian constitutional scholarship as a springboard into a socio-legal and critical investigation of the process by which Charter rights are given effect. Existing dialogic theories of the Charter focus largely on the work of courts and legislatures in relation to the Charter. Their focus is almost exclusively on the development of Charter rights through judicial decision-making and legislative law-making. A more comprehensive and socio-legal approach to Charter dialogue would pay attention to the different actors involved in Charter dialogues, the various dimensions of these dialogues, as well as the different sites in which they occur. This thesis unpacks many of the broader dimensions of the dialogic process by which Charter rights are given meaning through an examination of ongoing debates around the issue of same-sex relationship recognition in Canada. It provides a critical assessment of both the participation of social movements in the dialogic processes taking place under the Charter as well as the constraining effects of these processes on social movements and their efforts to seek social justice. In addition, it provides a multi-layered examination of the role of Charter litigation in spurring debate within the legislative sphere, as well as the role of Charter litigation in drawing attention to values and interests that often may be neglected within legislative deliberations. Finally, the thesis provides a critical analysis of public sphere debates spurred by the process of Charter litigation. It examines both the emancipatory potential of public sphere debates as well as the various ways in which this potential may be contained in practice. Overall, greater attention to the different non-state social actors involved in Charter dialogues as well as the different dimensions of this process and the different contexts in which it unfolds contributes to a more grounded and multi-layered understanding of the process through which Charter rights are given meaning and effect in Canada.
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 | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".