Asymmetry-lite? The Constitutional Status of the Terms of Union for British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Terms of Union" exist between the federal government of Canada and three Canadian provinces: British Columbia (1871), Prince Edward Island (1873), and Newfoundland and Labrador (1949). These documents once paved the way for three provinces to join Confederation. But they have also since been amended several times, and occasionally become sites of political controversy. While it is not clear that these documents are “treaties”, they do impose unique legal, constitutional and political obligations and rights on the signatory governments – obligations and rights which may not exist for other provinces. The function of these Terms of Union agreements is described and analyzed by comparing the case studies of the British Columbia railway dispute in the late 19th century and denominational education reforms in 1990s Newfoundland and Labrador. These events show not only that Terms of Union remain relevant in any discussion of constitution politics in the provinces where they exist, they are also sources of asymmetical 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".