Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1974, Elmer A. Driedger writes about the modern principle of interpretation for the first time in The Construction of Statutes, in which he states: « Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the Parliament ». The modern principle combines the three so-called traditional rules of interpretation in Canada, namely the Literal rule, the Golden rule and the Mischief rule in order to determine the legislator's intention. In 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada uses the modern principle of interpretation for the first time in Stubart. In 1998, this method becomes the privileged and fundamental interpretative principle of our highest court following Rizzo Shoes. Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently used the modern principle in its interpretative activity, to such an extent that it has become the most popular doctrinal reference in the history of the country. While the Supreme Court has fully adopted this principle of interpretation, the Canadian doctrine, on the other hand, has often been critical towards the statement of the modern principle and the intentionalist approach that underpins it. The author focuses on two major criticisms. According to the first criticism, the statement of the modern principle does not allow to take into account the legal norms and the consequences of an interpretation. The second criticism states that the method is unduly biased towards the discovery of the legislator's intention and consequently, that this bias casts a shadow on the role of the judge in the creation of law. For these reasons, a line of thinking in legal scholarship believes that the modern principle does not reflect the actual interpretative activity taken by the Supreme Court. The author questions both criticisms and determines if the modern principle of interpretation allows an accurate representation of the interpretative activity of the Supreme Court, and why. To this end, the legislator's intention, the principle of sovereignty of the legislator and the theory of separation of powers are key elements.
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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".