Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims at initiating dialogue between Canadian and Indian constitutional cultures. Canadian constitutional law is arguably characterized by ideologies of liberalism and legal positivism. Because human rights norms are expected to incorporate a vision of social justice into the law, ideologies and legal philosophies are crucial to assess the potential and the limitations of human rights protections. The legal cultures in Canada and India have similar roots, and yet the systems have evolved differently. Among other factors, judicial activism and the quest for social justice of judges at the Supreme Court of India were significant in the evolution of Indian constitutional culture. From a Canadian perspective, it is interesting to study this culture as it offers new avenues in the human rights field and therefore challenges the universal value of human rights norms as interpreted and applied in Canada. This thesis argues that, on the intersection of human rights and social issues like poverty and social classes, important lessons can be drawn from the way the Supreme Court of India has based its human rights interpretation on contextual analyses of Indian social reality. The judges engaged in judicial activism sought to move beyond the traditional ideologies found in the common law, and their jurisprudence is helpful in grasping the limitations these ideologies can put on human rights interpretation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".