Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over three decades, there have been numerous attempts, both federal and provincial, to create a national securities regulator for Canada. In the spring of 2010, the federal government tabled a draft Canadian Securities Act that would create a national securities regulator and referenced the draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a determination of Parliament’s constitutional authority to enact such legislation. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the reference in April 2011. This article seeks to provide an empirical foundation from a capital markets perspective to guide the discussion and debate on the constitutionality of a national securities regulator. an analysis of the relevant academic literature, the investing patterns of Canadian retail and institutional investors, and a changing global regulatory environment indicate the necessity of a national securities regulator for Canada at this time. While the constitutionality of federal capital markets regulation has yet to be determined, this article provides an empirical footing to ground the Supreme Court’s forthcoming analysis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".