Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this article is to consider the legal character of provincial agreements with foreign governments and the constitutional authority of provincial governments to make them. The matter is controversial ; Quebec has long maintained that provincial governments are competent to conclude treaties in areas of provincial jurisdiction, while the federal government asserts that it alone can conclude binding treaties. The argument of this essay is that the traditional arguments made for and against provincial competence to conclude treaties are equally unsatisfying. The best answer comes from a close analysis of the unwritten constitution from which the treaty power arises. Such analysis suggests that the otherwise credible argument, that the treaty-making power has devolved uniquely upon the federal government by a crystallization of constitutional usage into constitutional law, is blocked by Quebec's persistent objections over nearly forty years. Thus, the legal question of capacity to conclude treaties remains unresolved and indeed irresolvable without political dialogue. Finally, the article suggests that even if provinces do not have the power to make binding treaties, courts may nevertheless use provincial agreements with foreign governments, in the proper case, as a guide to the construction of legislation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".