MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954752369 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1065

“Thank God We’re Here”: Judicial Exclusivity in Charter Interpretation and Its Consequences

2004· article· en· W1954752369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Grant Huscroft

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSupreme courtPolitical scienceLawPoliticsConstitutionParliamentLegislatureInterpretation (philosophy)Duty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Court has claimed the role of “guardian of the constitution”, and neither Parliament nor the provincial legislatures have claimed any authority where the Charter is concerned. On the contrary, they have factored judicial exclusivity in Charter interpretation into their political deliberations. This paper considers the notion that the judiciary is the only legitimate interpreter of the Charter — how it became established, and the impact it has had on public policy and the political process in Canada. The pending reference to the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage is considered as an example of the problems judicial exclusivity can cause.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207