Could an intergovernmental agreement increase the credibility of Canadian treaty commitments in areas within provincial jurisdiction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s federal government has exclusive authority to commit Canada to international treaties, but, under the Canadian constitution, compliance with treaty obligations that extend into areas of provincial competence is solely within provincial jurisdiction. As well, while Canada is responsible to its treaty partners if provinces act contrary to Canada’s obligations, the provinces are not directly accountable. The absence of a direct legal requirement to fulfil treaty obligations means that incentives for provincial compliance are weakened and, in turn, that the reliability of Canadian obligations relating to matters within provincial jurisdiction is diminished. This paper explores the prospects for using an intergovernmental agreement to address the gap between provincial action and federal responsibility. While such an agreement could express each province’s commitment to comply with Canadian treaty obligations, intergovernmental agreements have some inherent weaknesses that make them an imperfect commitment device.
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 | 0.032 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".