New Questions about an Old Concept: The Supreme Court of Canada's Judicial Independence Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the age of the Charter, courts are an important part of the policy process, and judicial independence is the concept that structures the interactions between courts and other institutions. Historically, judicial independence in Canada was modelled on (and little different from) that of England; but politically-led reforms in the 1970s, and a string of more than a dozen Supreme Court decisions centred on the 1997 Remuneration Reference , are transforming the concept. At the same time, a parallel string of cases extends more limited but essentially similar guarantees to some other administrative bodies. Together, these developments represent an important and enduring change in the Canadian political landscape. Résumé. À l'ère de la Charte, les tribunaux sont un élément important de l'élaboration des politiques publiques, et l'indépendance judiciaire est le fondement des interactions entre les tribunaux et les autres institutions. Par le passé, l'indépendance judiciaire au Canada épousait le modèle britannique (et s'en éloignait assez peu); cependant, des réformes politiquement inspirées dans les années 1970 et une série de plus d'une douzaine de jugements de la Cour suprême centrés sur le renvoi de 1997 relatif à la rémunération sont en train de transformer ce concept. En même temps, une série de cas parallèles accorde des garanties plus limitées mais très similaires à d'autres corps administratifs. Ces changements se conjuguent pour modifier considérablement et de façon permanente le paysage politique canadien.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".