Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta and British Columbia v. Lafarge, the Supreme Court of Canada significantly altered the application of the constitutional doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. In each case, by a 6-1 majority, the Court rejected challenges to the application of provincial legislation to federal organizations (banks in the Alberta case, and a port authority in British Columbia). In doing so, the author argues, the Court has severely restricted the application of the doctrine, primarily by raising the threshold of the test from one of “affecting” a vital aspect of the federal organization to one which imposes a requirement of “impairment”. Further, the author suggests that the use of the doctrine may be further restricted by the Court’s limitation of the federal heads of power to which the doctrine will be applied, and by the suggestion of the Court in Lafarge that the doctrine should not be applied to “double aspect” cases. Finally, the author takes the position that these decisions bring much-needed clarity to the application of the doctrine, in a fashion which brings the doctrine in line with modern principles of Canadian federalism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".