Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professor Cameron provides an overview of the 2004 Supreme Court jurisprudence and states that despite the recent Chaoulli case the Court under Chief Justice McLachlin remains cautious choosing its moments of intervention under the Charter with care. Those who advocate strong judicial enforcement of Charter entitlements must have been sorely disappointed from the end of 2003 to the present. The Court dismissed a number of Charter claims though those losses were offset by the Demers, Vancouver Sun (Re), and Mann decisions. Last fall, the Court shifted to a no-nonsense style of decision-making which, spoke in one voice and resolved Charter claims efficiently, with analytical skill and precision. The decisions which fit that description include Hodge, N.A.P.E., Auton, Reference re Same Sex Marriage and the Quebec Language Education Cases. In the Same-Sex Marriage case the Court after concluding that same sex marriage was consistent with the Charter refused to consider whether an opposite sex definition was unconstitutional. In declining to answer the fourth question posed, the Court both protected itself from criticism for having the responsibility for gay marriage foisted upon the m and at the same time sent the message that if the federal government had wanted a legal answer to a legal question, it should have appealed the lower court decisions. In this way they took a very narrow and unobtrusive approach showing both institutional mettle and playing it safe by refusing to become a constitutional pawn in the political battle over gay marriage.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".