Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there has been a tendency to view the judiciary as being the primary institution responsible for securing and advancing constitutional rights and values. Less attention has been paid to what role government might have in this regard. In this article I explore the government’s role in what scholars sometimes refer to as ‘constitutional implementation’ and offer a theory of Canadian constitutionalism that better reflects this role. Following Alexy, I suggest that, guided by the ‘framework’ established by the Charter, government can be understood to play a central role in securing and advancing constitutional rights and values. If the Charter imposes explicit limits on state power as well as certain affirmative obligations, then the government’s role in constitutional implementation is much greater than is generally acknowledged. Once this role is better understood, certain deficiencies in the conventional account of Canadian constitutionalism become clear, particularly insofar as this account conceptualizes the Charter as comprising a series of limits on government power and imagines government as a potential rights-infringer to be reined in by the courts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".