The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures©
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article répond a l’argument que la révision judiciaire d’une loi en vertu la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés est illégitime car elle est non démocratique. Les auteurs soutiennent que les causes rendues en vertu de la Charte peuvent presque toujours être, et le sont souvent d’ailleurs, suivies par une nouvelle législation accomplissant les mêmes objectifs que celle rendue invalide. L’effet de la Charte est rarement de contrecarrer l’objectif visé par une loi, mais plutôt d’influencer la conception d’une loi qui donne suite à une décision judiciaire. Les arrêts rendues en vertu de la Charte provoquent un débat public dans lequel les droits protégés par celle-ci jouent un rôle plus prédominant que dans l’hypothèse où aucune décision judiciaire ne serait rendue. Cette approche doit être vue comme un « dialogue » entre les tribunaux et la législature.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".