La pluralisation culturelle de la Charte canadienne à l’aune de la marge d’appréciation (Cultural Pluralism and the Canadian Charter: The Margin of Appreciation Hypothesis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: A l’automne 2013, le gouvernement quebecois a presente une charte de la laicite prevoyant plusieurs mesures qui empieteraient sur la liberte de religion articulee dans la Charte canadienne. Prenant part au debat public, le constitutionnaliste Daniel Turp a suggere que le Quebec, en tant que « nation » reconnue par le parlement canadien, pourrait se prevaloir d’une marge d’appreciation en faisant reference au regime europeen des droits de la personne. En apparence peu plausible, cette suggestion permet neanmoins d’evaluer la problematique de federalisme sous-jacente a l’interpretation de la Charte canadienne par une institution centrale a la lumiere du droit international des droits de la personne. Cet expose examine l’hypothese de la marge d’appreciation dans le contexte d’un recours fonde sur la Charte canadienne porte devant la Cour supreme du Canada. English Abstract: In the autumn of 2013, the Government of Quebec presented a secular charter providing for many measures that would impinge upon the freedom of religion set out in the Canadian Charter. Taking part in public debate, constitutionalist Daniel Turp suggested that Quebec, as a “nation” recognized by the Canadian parliament, could make use of a margin of appreciation by calling upon the European human rights regime. While seemingly unlikely, this suggestion nevertheless allows for an evaluation of the issue of federalism underlying the interpretation of the Canadian Charter by a central institution in light of international human rights law. This article examines the theory of the margin of appreciation in the context of an action brought before the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to the Canadian Charter.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".