Bibliographic record
Abstract
In both Canada and the United States, the relationship between Church and State has caused problems which have had to be resolved by the courts on a case by case basis. In Canada, much more than in the United States, there have also been problems over the language question which also have had to be resolved by the courts. Indeed, in Canada the language issue can be considered to be the counterpart of the black versus white problem of the United States. In both Canada and the United States, the question is the protection of the rights of the minority, but the constitutional provisions of each that relate to these rights have a different approach. In Canada they take the form of permissions which are found in Sections 93 and 133 of the British North America Act. In the United States they are in the form of prohibitions found in the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In Canada, the effect of the Constitutional provisions vary from Province to Province, depending on what the situation was in a Province at the time it became apart of the Dominion. In the United States, the Constitutional prohibitions apply to all of the States in the same manner. But whatever the nature of the Constitutional provision, in both countries there has not been a lack of cases. Moreover, in both countries a quick, easy solution to the problems presented will probably never be found. Meanwhile, about all that the courts of either country can do is to continue the case by case approach so that it will present a reasonably consistent pattern as new problems develop and passions erupt.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".