The Impact of the Charter: Untangling the Effects of Institutional Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the main debates on the impact of the Charter's entrenchment in Canadian politics. In doing so, it casts a wide net, providing a selective exploration of the impact of the Charter in three main areas: 1) public policy; 2) political institutions and 3) political mobilization. The paper argues that we should move away from thinking about the Charter as a constitutional document that sets out rights that are protected by courts and move towards a view of the Charter as a structuring influence on Canadian political debate. In policy terms, the paper examines the instrumental impact of the Charter on criminal law and on lesbian and gay rights. While the Charter has strengthened the hand of the judiciary relative to other political institutions, the discursive and instrumental effects of the Charter are also felt in other political institutions such as the executive and Parliament as well as the operation of federalism. Perhaps most importantly, the Charter has become an important factor in structuring political mobilization and debate, encouraging civil society organizations to stake their political claims in terms of Charter rights (for better or ill) and contributing to the partisan competition between political parties in federal politics.
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 | 0.019 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".