Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, in Commonwealth countries such as Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia (at state level), is emerging a new, distinctive, model of constitutional review, in which courts have broad authority to interpret Bill of Rights provisions, but national legislatures can override courts' interpretations of rights by ordinary majority vote. In the UK, New Zealand and Australia (at state level), where it is not possible for a court to read and give effect to legislation in a way which is compatible with a bill of rights norms, a court may make a formal declaration of incompatibility. Such a declaration, however, does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given, and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made, following the traditional principle of sovereignty of Parliament. The net effect is that the legislature has powers to suspend the effect of courts' interpretation of particular rights, simply by the use of sufficiently clear language. In Canada – in a different constitutional setting – the key provision that ensures this is sect. 33 of the Canadian Charter, or the so-called notwithstanding clause, with the consequential overriding power conferred on federal Parliament and to the legislature of a province. Also in the Nordic countries (especially in Finland and Sweden), various type of well-established ex ante parliamentary preview and restrained ex post judicial review clearly fit with weak-form model of judicial review of legislation. This essay considers how this new model functions, in constitutional theory and practice of the chosen countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".