Book Review – Good Government? Good Citizens?: Courts, Politics and Markets in a Changing Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Something apparently has changed in Canada. People are turning to the market to protect and to the courts to protect and these trends are not only mutually reinforcing but, together, are undermining politics. Constitutional rights in the service of individual choice result in greater access to privately and unequally distributed goods and services. The rise of rights, the rise of individual choice, and the rise of the market combine to suggest that dramatic change is afoot in Canada.William Bogart at once illustrates and laments this convergence in his lively study, Good Government? Good Citizens? Courts, Politics and Markets in a Changing Canada. Bogart is a versatile scholar of wide-ranging interests. This is a book aimed not just at lawyers or academics but at a broader audience. Its style and substance are accessible; the prose is lively, well paced, and peppered with relevant anecdotes from popular culture, politics, literature, and recent headline news.This review discusses the book's central arguments and offers an alternative view of the turn to rights, the decline of legislative institutions, and the ascendancy of the discourse of choice. My analysis is divided into three sections. First, I explore Bogart's arguments regarding the rise of rights in Canada in the Charter era. Second, I consider the argument that, in the face of growing judicial power and legitimacy, legislative institutions are in decline. Finally, I canvass the case studies raised by Bogart in support of his position.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.011 |
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".