L'irrecevabilité du projet de modification de l'article 96 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the author demonstrates that section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a source of political tensions. The « rules of the game » in construing section 96 are well known but are neither clear nor precise. The government has proposed a section 96B which should be relevant today as well as in the next century, but the new section should not be an obstacle to necessary changes in the judicial and administrative systems. Nevertheless, the new section 96B runs the risk of replacing one constitutional problem by another one. If section 96B was to be enforced, the Legislature could give any judicial function, old or new, to an « authority other than a court », subject to judicial control of the function. By writing an amendment to section 96, consideration must be given to sections 97 to 101, which are also part of the « Judicature » Chapter in the Constitution Act, 1867 . In keeping with the author's thinking, some changes may be made to present law, which would be preferable to the proposed amendment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".