Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpretations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter the Charter) have expanded significantly through judicial reviews since its publication in 1982. Nonetheless, many vulnerable groups in Canadian society are unable to utilize their Charter rights and freedoms due to barriers to access to justice. This project intends to research potential changes that could be made to the Charter to allow disadvantaged groups to further enjoy equal access to justice and explore how these changes could benefit vulnerable groups by enhancing policies impacting their rights. Information will be gathered by assisting in the Community Symposium on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter the Charter Symposium). Participation in the Charter Symposium will expose the authors to the research and viewpoints of various scholars in the legal profession, who will present information throughout the event. Thus, the research conducted at the community symposium will play a key role in filling the gap in Charter literature. The research highlights three main topics; access to justice under the Charter, how Charter rights can be expanded to aid disadvantaged groups, and evaluate the potential to increase rights for official language minority groups. The implications of this research are expected to lead to better access to justice, knowledge and understanding of one's rights, and eventually enhanced policy for disadvantaged groups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.464 | 0.288 |
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".