MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1809215817 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1069

Keynote Address: Law and Politics in the Canadian Constitutional Tradition

2005· article· en· W1809215817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Ignatieff

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalistFederalismPoliticsPolitical scienceDemocracyMultinational corporationLawFace (sociological concept)Constitutional crisisLaw and economicsPolitical economySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once again we are approaching one of those moments in Canada in which constitutional law becomes central to our politics. The fundamental cost of the current political crisis is its impact on the national unity of our country. Whenever the next election comes it might result in the failure of any of the federal parties to secure national representation in all our regions, particularly in Quebec. Professor Ignatieff takes issue with those who believe that politics does not need ideas and those who would avoid constitutional discussion. He believes the challenge to federalism should be met head on saying that Canada is the most successful and enduring multinational, multi-lingual liberal democratic federation on Earth and that Quebec has benefited and has not been threatened by federalist arrangements in Canada. Constitutional dialogue amongst regions and languages of Canada is an ongoing process and Professor Ignatieff argues that it is the very condition of our collective survival. Federalism survives not merely by rebutting calls for its destruction, but by re-inventing itself in the face of challenge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.007

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207