Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que la réforme constitutionnelle de 1982 ait apporté de nombreux changements au système politique canadien, elle a, économe de moyens, préservé dans son ensemble le régime politique, dont notamment ce dualisme organique du droit écrit et non écrit qui n’a cessé de définir le constitutionnalisme canadien. Cet article essaie de mettre en lumière la fonction de conservation et d’adaptation du « régime constitutionnel » que la Cour suprême du Canada a continué d’exercer après 1982, fonction fondamentale dans une démocratie moniste qui recourt peu souvent à la procédure d’amendement pour faire évoluer le régime. L’auteur montre comment la Cour a tenté d’enregistrer les mutations démocratiques du régime et de les accorder avec ses principes invariants, au risque toutefois de dévaloriser le droit constitutionnel écrit et de succomber à une conception essentialiste du pouvoir juridictionnel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".