MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W751313829 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.2821

Substantive Equality As Equal Recognition: A New Theory of Section 15 of the Charter

2015· article· en· W751313829 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Anthony Robert Sangiuliano

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSection (typography)Supreme courtLawEconomic JusticePolitical scienceSociologyLaw and economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a novel theory of the concept of substantive equality under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms called Substantive Equality as Equal Recognition. This contribution is timely in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent disagreement over the proper jurisprudential approach to interpreting section 15(1) in the 2013 case of Quebec v A. Substantive Equality as Equal Recognition holds that the purpose of section 15(1) is to ensure that the law’s application does not reflect, through its impact or effects, hierarchies of status that exist between citizens within Canadian society. The article argues that the theory is disclosed by the doctrinal principles laid down by Justice McIntyre in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, the first decision on section 15(1) of the Charter. It also argues that the account of the wrongfulness of discrimination generated by Substantive Equality as Equal Recognition is preferable to other accounts and that the theory can help navigate the disagreement between the judges in Quebec v A.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207