Reflections on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: a Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitution by adding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,' which "explicitly authorized judicial review and the power of all courts to declare offending statutes void."' 2 This event was a turning point for the Canadian legal and political system and culture, prompting much speculation and a great deal of debate about what the effect of the Charter would, and should, be.Over the past two decades, the Osgoode Hall Law Journal has provided a forum for scholarly discussion and analysis of some of the crucial questions arising out of this debate.The appropriate relationship between the courts and legislatures in a liberal democracy has been a recurring theme in the debate surrounding the Charter that has been taken up in the pages of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.The normative question about what the relationship between these two institutions should be 3 and the empirical question of the actual impact of the Charter on the relations between courts and legislatures have been considered.4 Political scientists and legal academics have attempted to answer these questions, promoting a dialogue between the disciplines in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".