MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1810894131 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1017

Judicial Power and the Charter: Three Myths and a Political Analysis

2001· article· en· W1810894131 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher P. Manfredi

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawStatuteCharterPolitical scienceJudicial reviewPoliticsNullificationEconomic JusticeJudicial activism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the Supreme Court exercise "too much" judicial power under the Charter?Consider that over 22 years (1960-1982), the federal Bill of Rights generated 34 Supreme Court decisions, five successful claims, and only one partial nullification of a federal statute. 1 During the same period, the number of constitutional decisions issued by the Court totalled 120, or less than six per year. 2 By contrast, over its first 17 years of operation (1982-1999) the Charter generated 390 Supreme Court decisions, 130 successful claims, and 63 nullifications of federal or provincial statutes. 3As these comparisons affirm, and as everyone acknowledges, the scope of judicial power has increased under the Charter.But has it increased "too much?"In September, 2000 the Chief Justice of Canada responded to those who might answer this question affirmatively by delivering a speech entitled "Judicial Power and Democracy." 4Noting the "global expansion of judicial power," the Chief Justice nevertheless argued that "[o]ur task is not to curtail

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207