Bibliographic record
Abstract
On November 30th, 1977, the Supreme Court rendered two important decisions which put an end to the provincial claims for jurisdiction on cable distribution undertakings. On January 19, 1978, the Supreme Court rendered a third judgment dealing with provincial consumer protection legislation affecting broadcasting undertakings. These three judgments although flowing from unrelated matters, must be read together. They confirm that the federal power over radiocommunications is exclusive. Any service which is connected thereto such as the distribution of programming by means of cables form and integral part of the broadcasting system and, as a result, falls under the federal power. The fact that the cable distribution service is owned and operated by a different person and that it has its own infrastructure is immaterial. The question is : what is the service being rendered. If, as the Court found in the case, the service is mainly to facilitate the public's assess to broadcasting, then it is an integral part thereof. The Court found, however, that a province could control advertising even where it was destined for broadcasting so long as the regulation was directed at the manufacturer and not the broadcaster. It is unclear, however, whether this power would survive the adoption by Parliament of conflicting legislation on the same subject matter.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".