Where Did (Section) I Come from? The Debates Over the Limitations Clause at the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution, 1980-81
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contends that the history of the enactment of the limitations clause contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be relevant to the interpretation of that provision. This paper has five sections in addition to this introduction. In Part II, I address the argument as to why the history of section 1 should be considered relevant in interpreting that provision. This may seem like a rhetorical question but as constitutional lawyers and scholars in this country know, it is not. I then sketch out a brief history of how the current section 1 came to be. Parts III-V present three themes that emerge from the history of section 1: the relationship between the limitations clause and other sections of the Charter; the question of onus; and conforming to international standards and treaties. Finally, Part VI ends with a brief conclusion and further exhortation regarding the importance of constitutional history.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".