Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter forwards a new socio‐political explanation for the genesis of the Canadian Bill of Rights Act (CBORA) (1960). Following a brief chronological overview, the first part of the chapter explores the origins of increased social support for a bill of rights in Canada from the mid‐1930s onwards. It argues that demands for such an instrument arose out of the civil libertarian and social equality communities and that these communities were given added political saliency by the gradual postmaterialization of the Canadian economy and society. Nevertheless, this factor alone, cannot explain the precocious development of such pressures in Canada vis‐à‐vis other Westminster democracies. Explanations of this which focus either on international human rights developments or on the federal features of the Canadian political system are rejected. By contrast, it is found that Canada's particularly close cultural and people‐to‐people linkages with the bill of rights‐infused United States did prove important. The final part of the chapter explores the immediate political origins of CBORA. It is found that this was fuelled by the ‘aversive’ response of key Progressive Conservatives to the perceived abuses of procedural rights and other guarantees under the previous Liberal Government. Combined with the social forces already mentioned, the nature and strength of this trigger strongly influenced both the substantive content and statutory structure of CBORA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".