Le Parlement, les tribunaux et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le privilège parlementaire, essentiel au bon fonctionnement du parlementarisme canadien, est trop souvent mal compris par les tribunaux, mais également par les parlementaires eux-mêmes, qui vont parfois l’invoquer de manière abusive. Depuis l’avènement de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, les tribunaux tentent, avec un succès mitigé, de réconcilier le privilège parlementaire avec les droits et libertés constitutionnels. À l’aide d’une étude de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine, l’auteur analyse de manière critique le modèle canadien de privilège parlementaire. Il tente tout d’abord de bien comprendre les bases historiques et constitutionnelles du privilège au Canada. Par la suite, il circonscrit les principaux problèmes de l’approche de la Cour suprême du Canada en la matière pour ensuite proposer des pistes de solution, adressées aux tribunaux, mais aussi aux parlementaires, afin de mieux adapter le privilège parlementaire aux réalités du xxie siècle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".