MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1998536077 · doi:10.1017/s0008423905229980

Toward the Charter: Canadians and the Demand for a National Bill of Rights, 1929–1960

2005· article· en· W1998536077 on OpenAlexaffabout
James B. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterBill of rightsLawPolitical scienceParliamentCivil libertiesSupreme courtStatutory lawHuman rightsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toward the Charter: Canadians and the Demand for a National Bill of Rights, 1929–1960, Christopher MacLennan, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003, pp. xii, 234. This is an excellent and timely book, providing a review of the pivotal historical events and the actions of civil libertarians and parliamentarians that resulted in the statutory Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. Indeed, the true value of this book is that it suggests the limited nature of the present debate on judicial power and of the tendency to see the Charter of Rights as simply an institutional dialogue between the Supreme Court and the Parliament of Canada. MacLennan's work reminds us that the entrenchment of the Charter cannot be understood without considering the historical legacy of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, and the important struggles of interest groups, civil liberties organizations, academics such as F.R. Scott and members of Parliament such as John Diefenbaker, all of whom encountered strong resistance to the idea of a national bill of rights from the Liberal governments of Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.020
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political Science→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→