Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Government of Canada presently possesses the power to commit Canadian soldiers to battle without Parliamentary approval. On this basis, troops were deployed to Northern Iraq after a brief debate inaugurated by a non-binding take note motion presented in the House of Commons. This article notes that this power is anomalous in the era of responsible government, and argues that it should be reconsidered in the light of recent changes to the constitutional order of the United Kingdom.The article describes the constitutional convention created in the United Kingdom in 2012. This requires the Government to abide with the results of a vote in the House of Commons on the deployment. This article argues that the adoption of the convention was not a response to abstract concerns about the balance of powers. Rather, it was deemed be politically necessary owing the revelations about the Blair Government’s abuse of the royal prerogative.The article further argues that the same incentives for abuse of the Government’s power over combat deployments exist in Canada at present. The creation of a Canadian constitutional convention requiring prior Parliamentary approval would promote the transmission of accurate information about the factual and legal basis for military action and would serve as a check on deployments that might violate international law. Accordingly, the article describes how such a convention might be created in Canada and concludes that it is both appropriate and necessary in the current political environment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".