Bibliographic record
Abstract
I want to do two things similar to what Professor Farber did.I want to give a rough sketch of the constitutional division of powers in Canada in relation to trade.Then I want to talk a little bit about the implementation of trade agreements and ways in which the divisions of powers impact trade issues specifically.Then I will offer some prediction as to the future.Canada has the Constitution Act of 1867, formerly known as the British North America Act, but renamed in 1982, which seemed, in the wording of the 1867 Act, to allocate an omnibus trade power to the Federal Parliament because the Parliament of Canada is given the power to regulate "trade and commerce."In 1867, the drafters looked at the U.S. and saw the U.S. limiting Congress' power to regulate interstate trade and interstate commerce.The Canadian drafters said, "We do not want any of that."The Canadian Parliament was given an all encompassing power over trade and commerce, whether it is interstate or intrastate, local trade.However, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was until 1949 the highest judicial tribunal in Canada, significantly narrowed the scope of the federal trade power.That began in a case called Parsons in 1881, in which, essentially, the Privy Council said that this omnibus trade power was in reality limited to two specific kinds of categories.'The first category was international and interprovincial trade, that is what Americans would term interstate trade or foreigu trade, and the second being a potential category, something the Privy Council described as being the general regulation of trade affecting the whole dominion.The Law Lords said it may be that there is some general trade power in addition to this power to regulate inter provincial and international trade.However, hat second category was largely ignored for the next century.The result of this early case and subsequent cases was that through interpretation, the federal trade power could not embrace purely local or intra-
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".