Les pouvoirs de légiférer en matière de langue après la « Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this study is to ascertain the power of the federal and the provincial governments to legislate concerning language in Canada. After a study of the ancillary doctrine as the constitutional basis for the exercise of this power by either level of government, the author studied the constitutional restrictions on its use, and determined the following restrictions : 1. For the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, only : section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which is also an entrenched provision providing minimum rights. 2. For the province of Manitoba only : section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 which is also an entrenched provision providing minimum rights. 3. For the province of New-Brunswick, only : sections 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) and 20(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. 4. For all provinces, subject to the present inapplicability of section 23(1) a) of the new charter concerning the province of Quebec : section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 5. For all provinces and for the federal government : section 16(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, section 15(1) which recognizes the right to equality, and 2b) which recognizes the freedom of expression. Finally the author studied the implications of the reasonable limits' provision outlined in section 1 of the new charter, this constituting the only means for our governments to avoid the application of the charter to their legislation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".