Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial recourse to constitutional law sources from abroad has been likened to the process of bricolage--coined by anthropologist Claude Lévi- Strauss, this refers to the "borrowing from materials readily at hand." Building on the idea of constitutional borrowing, this paper aims to take account of the role dominant political culture plays in constitutional interpretation, in particular, the values associated with economic globalization. If resort to comparative constitutional sources is on the rise, dominant political culture will likely have the effect of limiting the stock of tools available to judges. The author argues that, in an age of economic globalization, the "buyer-seller" model of constitutional interpretation will be one of the principal interpretive sources readily at hand. This is a model which valorizes market relations of free and mutual exchange, ideas familiar to U.S. constitutional law particularly in the Lochner era. It is argued that this market model has emerged as an important mode of interpretation in Canadian constitutional law since 1982. This is suggested by an examination of recent decisions in the realms of federalism, Charter rights, and Aboriginal rights, though not all cases can be explained in this way. Nor is this a phenomenon isolated to Canada; rather, it is to be expected that the buyer-seller model will have universal appeal, for it appears to be the best available method of securing economic success in an era of intense competition between national states for foreign capital.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".