MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187207196 · doi:10.11575/prism/38477

Notwithstanding the Override: Path Dependence, Section 33, and the Charter

2008· article· en· W2187207196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David A. Snow

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceLegitimacyPoliticsLawEstablishment ClauseGovernment (linguistics)Law and economicsLegislatureSociologySupreme courtFirst amendment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – the 'notwithstanding clause' – remains controversial. Although the clause exists as a legitimate constitutional instrument, it has been used infrequently, and never by the federal government. This paper examines arguments put forward to explain the infrequent use of the clause. Of all the explanations offered, the historical-institutionalist concept of 'path dependence' is most compelling. Ever since the Quebec government used the notwithstanding clause in response to Ford v. Quebec (1988), subsequent Prime Ministers have demonized the clause in order to gain political capital. The depiction of section 33 as inherently antithetical to the logic of a Charter of Rights has been so successful that few political leaders will risk using the clause, even when public opinion is in favour. With the Charter being seen as a 'symbolic rights-giver,' this demonization has led to the gradual erosion of section 33’s legitimacy as an acceptable legislative instrument.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207