Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Pendant les dernières décennies, la Cour suprême du Canada a élaboré les conséquences de la constitutionalisation des droits autochtones. La jurisprudence a d'abord adopté une approche fondée sur les droits envers leur protection, les mettant dans une large mesure à l'abri d'intrusions législatives. Dans des décisions plus récentes toutefois, la Cour suprême à considérablement réduit le degré de protection dont ces droits jouissent. Elle a développe un ensemble de principes généraux sur la justification de l'activisme judiciaire, des principes qui s'appuient ultimement sur une vision du Canada comme démocratie constitutionnelle et le rôle du judiciaire dans une telle structure démocratique. L'article analyse les voies qui s'ouvrent à la Cour pour déployer les principes et la vision dont ils émanent, afin de justifier son activisme récent dans le domaine des droits des Autochtones
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".