Recognition or imposition? Federalism, national minorities, and the Supreme Court of Canada<sup>†</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. This paper makes two main arguments. First, federalism in Canada, properly conceived, is a system which evolves as a result of struggles over the norms of mutual recognition between territorially based groups. Second, if federalism is to work as a way of accommodating national minorities, the role of the judiciary in adjudicating this relationship must be taken into account, because it plays an integral role in the continuing contestation of the arrangement. I begin with the ‘problem’ of national minorities in the nation‐state system and why federalism is espoused as a solution for alleviating tensions, focusing on Canada. I then turn to review the relevant jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in adjudicating the federal arrangement. Finally, considering this jurisprudence, I reflect on why it is important to account for the role of the Court when promoting federalism to accommodate national minorities. I go on to argue that a dialogical approach to federalism, as opposed to a monological one, is best suited to do this.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".