The "Principle" of Federalism and the Legacy of Patriation and Quebec Veto References
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Patriation Reference and Quebec Veto Reference revealed deep disagreements as to the nature of Canadian federalism and the normative underpinnings, if any, of the federal principle. This paper identifies two dominant conceptions of federalism in these early 1980s references, a positivist-voluntarist one and generic-historicist one, which have both informed in one way or another the case law since. After examining the normative ideas recently associated with federalism by Supreme Court justices, the paper shows that members of the Court remain divided not only as to the meaning of such ideas and the normative consequences flowing from the m, but also as to the relevance and justiciability of the federal principle itself. It argues that although such an outcome is probably inevitable in a divided society such as Canada, a common syntax of federalism, revolving around core values underlying the federal principle, could help buttress the quality of reasons invoked in support of rulings made about the formal division of powers. If, incidentally, such an approach could help frame political debates so that they are more sensitive to the existence of diverse conceptions of federalism, and more prone to reconciling the m when possible, so much the better.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".