The Bilateral Amending Formula as a Mechanism for the Entrenchment of Property Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moves are once again underway to seek to constitutionally entrench property rights, with discussion occurring on the idea in a variety of contexts. In early 2011, federal Member of Parliament (MP) Scott Reid and Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) Randy Hillier announced their intention to introduce private member’s bills in their respective legislative assemblies that would entrench property rights.1 They proposed to do so via the legal mechanism of using the bilateral amending formula in s. 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which allows for a constitutional amendment "in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all provinces" to be made by just the affected province(s) and Parliament.2 Thus, if both had been adopted, their bills would have entrenched property rights in Ontario through the addition of a new subsection in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although these particular bills were not introduced or adopted there is every reason to think that efforts to do so will continue.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".