Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become the dominant feature of the Canadian Constitution, and the power of the Supreme Court of Canada has grown enormously in the twenty-five years since the Charter was entrenched. The Court is the self-styled guardian of the constitution, and the other branches of government have acquiesced in its claim to the mantle. Few see any distinction between the Court and the Charter itself: the Charter's vaguely worded rights and freedoms are supposed to mean whatever the Court says they do. Dialogue theory rationalizes this world of judicial interpretive supremacy by exaggerating the power of the elected branches to respond to judicial decisions striking down legislation. The 'dialogue' Canadian theorists have in mind is one in which the Court is free to interpret the Charter as it will, while Canadian legislatures are required to adopt the Court's interpretation and act within such parameters as its decisions allow. But this is not a dialogue in any meaningful sense. Canada's experience with the regulation of tobacco advertising demonstrates how misleading dialogue theory can be.
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".