MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551668827 · doi:10.21991/c9kd4w

The Notwithstanding Clause, the Charter, and Canada's Patriated Constitution: What I Thought We Were Doing

2012· article· en· W1551668827 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLegislatureConstitutionGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceLawEstablishment ClauseBill of rightsConstitutional lawLaw and economicsSociologyFirst amendmentPhilosophyLinguisticsSupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professor Whyte, in his article “Sometimes Constitutions are Made in the Streets: the Future of the Charter’s Notwithstanding Clause,” raises some intriguing points. He gives a historical review of the origin of the “notwithstanding” clause as it appears in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982. In the course of so doing, he appears to propose a distinction between “rights” – those claims which are included in the Charter, and “policies” – those claims which are protected by the activities of the legislative and executive arms of government. This is, I argue, a false dichotomy. It leads to the conclusion that the use of the “notwithstanding” clause can only amount to a suspension of rights in favour of achieving government policy.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0200.016
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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