Forging Alberta's Constitutional Framework, Richard Connors and John M. Law, eds., and The Alberta Supreme Court at 100: History and Authority, Jonathan Swainger, Ed.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent issue I raised the question of whether Canada has developed a distinctive law of its own. With two recent publications it is possible to focus that question more narrowly and ask if there is such a thing as a distinctive Albertan law that has developed over the twentieth century. In the introduction to their book Forging Alberta's Constitutional Framework (Forging), Richard Connors and John Law declare that "Alberta has, in part, forged its own Constitution and its place within Canada's Constitution." This statement perfectly balances the issue: on the one hand, Alberta has its own Constitution that it has made itself; on the other hand, it exists as an entity within the wider Canadian constitutional framework. In his introduction to The Alberta Supreme Court at 100: History and Authority, Jonathan Swainger strikes a similar balance: "In those areas where the Court did act, the weight of evidence suggests that while some aspects of Alberta's jurisprudential path have been creative and forward looking, in others they were less inclined to strike out in new directions.... And if the Court's jurisprudence in a given area might appear tentative or tightly prescribed, in others we find indications of a distinctive "made in Alberta" flavour that did not necessarily tread expected paths."Reading these books introduces us to many interesting parts of Alberta's legal past, but in the end these sometimes unique events do not lead us to conclude that there is much distinct about the law in Alberta, whether in its constitutional framework or in its courts.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".