MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The notwithstanding mechanism and public discussion: Lessons from the ignored practice of section 33 of the Charter

2001· article· fr· W2084741629 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCharterPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sommaire: La plupart des Canadiens pensent que la clause dérogatoire, à savoir I'article 33 de la Charte des droits et libertés , n'a été utilisée qu'à quelques reprises par le passé et qu'à l'heure actuelle aucune loi se prévalant de l'article 33 n'est en vigueur. Le présent article révèle que la clause dérogatoire a en fait été utilisée par seize différents textes législatifs (en plus de l'usage général qui en est fait au Québec) et que sept lois se prévalant du mécanisme sont encore en vigueur. L'article soutient ensuite que les deux principales raisons pour lesquelles le public ne remarque pas le recours à l'article 33 s'expliquent par le fait que ces cas étaient à la fois invisibles et inaccessibles. Ils étaient invisibles parce qu'ils portaient sur des sujets qui n'étaient pas à l'ordre du jour public et ils étaient inaccessibles parce qu'ils traitaient de questions de politiques compliquées. L'article conclut en argumentant qu'on ne devrait recourir à la clause dérogatoire qu'en réaction à une décision de la Cour suprême et non avant une telle décision. Il est probable qu'une décision de la Cour suprême aurait rendu ces recours ignorés à l'article 33 à la fois plus visibles, plus accessibles, et de ce fait plus évidents. Abstract: Most Canadians believe that the notwithstanding clause, namely section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has been used only a few times in the past and that currently no legislations invoking section 33 is in force. This article reveals that the “notwithstanding mechanism” was actually used in sixteen different pieces of legislation (in addition to its omnibus use by Quebec) and that seven acts invoking the mechanism are still in force. The article then argues that two main reasons for the lack of public response to these invocations of section 33 were that these uses were both invisible and inaccessible. They were invisible because they dealt with matters that were not on the public agenda and they were inaccessible because they dealt with complicated policy questions. The article concludes by contending that the notwithstanding mechanism should only be used in response to a Supreme Court decision and not prior to it. It is likely that a Supreme Court decision would have made these ignored uses of section 33 both more visible and more accessible and hencc more noticeable.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it