Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1984, Bruce A. Ackerman and Robert E. Charney wrote that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms situated Canada at the constitutional crossroads, confronting the choice between parliamentary and popular The authors questioned Canada's commitment to the separation of powers. However the Supreme Court of Canada's abortion jurisprudence suggests that the issue is not whether Canada subscribes to the separation of powers. Rather this jurisprudence challenges the claim that Canada is at the constitutional crossroads identified by Ackerman and Charney. When a majority of the judges relied on the Charter right to security of the person to decriminalize abortion in the 1988 Morgentaler case, the Court's decision was consistent with popular sovereignty as Ackerman and Charney depict it. However, many feminist legal scholars contend that the Charter right to sex equality would have provided better protection for women. This scholarship challenges the notion of popular sovereignty on which Ackerman and Charney rely and suggests that we need a new concept to distinguish sovereignty as feminists understand it.Given its roots in the equality principle, I argue this new feminist concept should be known as sovereignty. Informed by the equality principle, substantive sovereignty differs not only from parliamentary sovereignty or deference but also from popular sovereignty or judicial activism. Assuming the existence of the controversy - parliamentary versus popular sovereignty - that Ackerman and Charney described, it was resolved by adopting the Charter. In contrast, feminist legal scholars who challenge the Supreme Court of Canada's abortion jurisprudence proffer a more compelling identification of our contemporary constitutional controversy. Canada is, in short, at the constitutional crossroads between popular versus substantive
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".