The State Management of Legal and Cultural Diversity in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a contextual and critical overview of how legal and cultural diversity is managed by the state in Canada. It particularly seeks to provide an account of how the state manages its interactions with other normative systems, when and only when it deems appropriate to formally interact with them, be it to merely acknowledge their existence, to influence their evolution, or to neutralize their effects. The first part examines the genesis of the legal and cultural encounters that are still shaping Canada today. A particular attention is paid to the interactions, historical and current, between the legal traditions that co-exist in Canada. As such, its focus is mostly on state attempts at orchestrating sources of legal pluralism. The second part looks at the relative influence of different sources of law in the management of cultural diversity in Canada. After a brief examination of the treatment and impact of international law, the focus shifts to the central role that constitutional law plays in Canada as a tool for macro-managing cultural diversity. Then, some particular statutory techniques used to micro-manage particular issues are analyzed. A brief third part finally examines some particularly interesting features of the legal theorization of pluralism in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".