MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1690183032 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1283

2013: Constitutional Cases in Review

2014· article· en· W1690183032 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sonia Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawCharterPolitical scienceConstitutionEconomic JusticeHigh CourtGovernment (linguistics)Constitutional right

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author reviews the 11 constitutional decisions released by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013. She makes three main points. First, the decisions are mainly unanimous. The great majority also upholds the existing law, excepting the dramatic decision of the Court to strike down three sections of the Criminal Code in the Bedford challenge to Canada’s criminal laws around the sale of sex. Second, two cases in which the Court was not unanimous, Quebec v. A and Manitoba Metis, engaged with critical and difficult constitutional questions, namely, the scope of section 15 equality protection and Canada’s constitutionalized relationships with Indigenous peoples. The fissures revealed in these cases will almost certainly prove significant in the future. Finally, 2013 was an unusual year in which the Supreme Court became embroiled in some dramatic and unprecedented tussles with the elected government, over Prime Minister Harper’s attempt to appoint Mr. Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court. These disputes continued and expanded through the early part of 2014 and Canadians were faced with the spectacle of the Prime Minister’s Office casting aspersions on the ethics of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The author suggests that the aftermath of 2013 might be a new era in the relationship between our highest court and our federal government, one that might even knock the dust off section 33 of the Charter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207