Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter expresses a sceptical stance about the extent to which bills of rights can be crafted in such a way as to avoid the damaging consequences of strong judicial review. Research on how bills of rights affect bureaucratic and political behaviour when developing and evaluating legislation in Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, shows that even ‘weak’ bills of rights lead to cautious executives who refrain from bringing forward legislation that might be considered inconsistent with judicial decisions. In this way, they may be said to ‘govern like judges’ producing legalistic legislation which distorts policy and political judgments regarding human rights concerns. It is as if judges were in the corridors of power at the time legislation is being developed. Moreover, the capacity of parliamentarians to oppose government legislation is reduced if the legislation is thought to be potentially inconsistent with relevant judicial rulings. The chapter therefore believes that weak form systems are unstable and will either revert to parliamentary supremacy of merge into strong court systems. It concludes that, however bills of rights are designed, and allowing for significant differences between Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, the idea of developing robust and effective systems of rights-based parliamentary scrutiny is unrealistic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".