Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first part of this article, the author argues that the Supreme Court's exclusion of the judiciary from the ambit of section 32(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not create an immunity from Charter review in favour of courts and judges. He identifies two broad categories of cases where judicial action is indeed subject to Charter scrutiny. In these cases the Charter applies because a basis for review can be found independently of section 32(1) and because there is no risk of a direct intrusion of Charter dictates into the private sphere. In the second part of the paper, the appropriate remedial response to judicial breaches of Charter guarantees is investigated. It is shown that the statutory and common law rules restricting judicial liability cannot dictate when a monetary award is "appropriate and just" within the terms of section 24(1) of the Charter. Personal immunity from constitutional suits, however, appears to be required as an aspect of the constitutional principle of judicial independence.
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 | 0.051 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".