MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552697023 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781490.009

Judicial review, legislative override, and democracy

2010· book-chapter· en· W1552697023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Goldsworthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislaturePolitical scienceDemocracyLawJudicial reviewLaw and economicsSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘notwithstanding clause’ Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights famously provides that Canadian legislation ‘may expressly declare … that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter’. This ‘notwithstanding’ or ‘override’ clause enables legislatures to override those specified sections of the Charter, and the rights they protect, although only for renewable five-year periods. Section 33 is said to have been ‘included in the Charter for the very purpose of preserving parliamentary sovereignty on rights issues’. But this exaggerates its effect. It is limited in scope, and by no means preserves the law-making powers previously enjoyed by Canadian parliaments. It does not authorise the amendment or repeal of any provisions of the Charter; it does not authorise the override of all Charter rights; and it authorises override only for five-year periods. Many supporters of the Charter have strongly criticised s. 33 on the predictable ground that it is incompatible with the main purpose of constitutionally entrenching rights. As they see it, that purpose is to protect rights from being overridden by legislation – in other words, to prevent precisely what s. 33 expressly permits. On their view, what the Charter purports to grant with one hand, it takes away with the other.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207