Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that judicial review can produce a dialogue between courts and legislatures has been getting much scrutiny in Canada. This attention can be explained by the structure of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By allowing ordinary legislation to place limits on rights as interpreted by the courts and even to override them, the Charter contemplates and invites dialogue between courts, legislatures and the larger society about the treatment of rights in a free and democratic society.In the first part of this article, I will outline the major features of dialogic judicial review in Canada as a political or constitutional theory about how both courts and legislatures can contribute to debates about controversies about rights and freedoms. These key features include both sections 1 and 33 of the Charter, the exercise of remedial discretion to allow legislatures to select among a range of constitutional options and cabinet-dominated Parliamentary government. Some critics of dialogue argue that dialogue theory lacks normative content ... The fact that one institution can escape the consequences of another's actions says nothing about the latter's legitimacy. In the second part of this article, I will respond to this important critique by acknowledging that there is a need to articulate what courts can uniquely contribute to political debates about rights. Courts should play a role that will not otherwise be played by legislatures. In the third part of this article, I will attempt to disentangle empirical and normative strands in this important critique of dialogue theory. At an empirical level, we need a better understanding of when and why legislatures accept certain judicial decisions. This will increasingly take those interested in dialogic judicial review into the realm of case studies of the interaction of the judicial and legislative processes.
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 | 0.075 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".