MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143589951 · doi:10.1017/s0008423913000504

Governmental Interventions and Judicial Decision Making: The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of the Charter

2013· article· en· W2143589951 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vuk Radmilovic

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSupreme courtPolitical scienceLawIntervention (counseling)HumanitiesJudicial reviewPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. While comparative public law scholars report that we are witnessing a “global expansion of judicial power” (Tate and Vallinder, 1995), much of the comparative research also suggests that judicial power is subject to significant external constraints, including those associated with interests of governmental actors (such as Helmke, 2005; Vanberg, 2005). In Canada, however, the question of the extent to which governmental actors affect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision making in the wake of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not received systematic attention (but see Hennigar, 2010; Kelly, 2005). The paper analyzes the extent to which governmental mobilization through third-party intervention affects the Supreme Court's decision making. It relies on a dataset of all constitutional rights cases involving review of written laws decided by the Court in the post-charter period (1982–2007). It shows that third-party intervention is a powerful institutional mechanism providing governmental actors with an opportunity to systematically affect the exercise of judicial review. Résumé. Alors que les chercheurs en droit public comparé affirment que nous assistons à une «expansion globale du pouvoir judiciaire» (Tate et Vallinder, 1995), la recherché comparative suggère également que le pouvoir judiciaire est soumis à de fortes contraintes extérieures, y compris celles associées aux intérêts des acteurs gouvernementaux (Helmke, 2005; Vanberg, 2005). Au Canada, cependant, la question de l'impact des acteurs gouvernementaux sur le processus de décision de la Cour Suprême, dans la foulée de l'adoption de la Charte, a reçu peu d'attention (à l'exception des travaux d'Hennigar 2010; Kelly, 2005). Cet article explore dans quelle mesure la mobilisation gouvernementale par l'entremise de l'intervention des tiers influence le processus de décision de la Cour Suprême. Il s'appuie sur une base de données des décisions liées aux droits constitutionnels dans la période de l'après-Charte (1982–1997) qui ont nécessité un examen de législations gouvernementales. Il démontre que l'intervention de tiers est un puissant mécanisme institutionnel permettant aux acteurs gouvernementaux de systématiquement influencer l'exercice du contrôle judiciaire.

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 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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207