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 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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".