Situation du partage des compétences législatives en matière de ressources naturelles au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With respect to the public domain, the British North America Act of 1867 established a division of authority which is relatively simple in principle: residuary interest in property belongs to the Provinces while the Federal authority has no more than the power of exception. From this principle which is derived principally from article 109 of the 1867 Act, we can say that the Provinces have authority to legislate on questions affecting natural resources. However, the Canadian Parliament can also legislate on questions affecting natural resources. This is derived from either express authority granted it or from implied authority. In effect, the majority of the authority which permits the Canadian Parliament to legislate in matters affecting natural resources is derived either directly or indirectly from the application of its trenching power. The introductory clause of article 91 of the 1867 Act is an important source of the Federal authority over natural resources. Through the application of the national dimension theory, Ottawa has assumed control over atomic energy, off-store mineral resources, water management, and the expropriation of provincial lands. Moreover, through the application of emergency powers, Parliament could eventually legislate on a considerable number of subjects related to natural resources. Also, a number of the Federal Government's enumerated powers permit the control authority to legislate on questions of natural resources. The principle examples of this are its authority over the public debt and property, commerce, taxation, navigation, fisheries, Indians, the authority granted it by article 92(10c), and article 108 of the 1867 Act. One must thus conclude that by judicial interpretation, the Federal government has gained concurrent authority over natural resources through the application of the principle of Federal preponderance in case of conflict.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".