MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560454368 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3053

Book Note: The End of the Charter Revolution: Looking Back from the New Normal by Peter J McCormick

2016· article· en· W2560454368 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLawExpansiveSupreme courtPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeNarrativeSociologyHistoryArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CANADA’S CONSTITUTIONALIZED BILL OF RIGHTS, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,2 unified the country under a set of principles that were designed to encapsulate liberty and equality, and safeguard an expansive set of rights and freedoms. Entrenched in 1982, the Charter fundamentally changed the Canadian legal landscape and allowed the Supreme Court of Canada to take center stage as the “best show in town,”3 generously sketching out rights for all in a golden age of Canadian law. But, as Peter McCormick argues in his new book The End of the Charter Revolution, that golden age may be finished. The Charter revolution is over, McCormick argues, and the cases before the SCC are now “detail shufflers rather than groundbreakers.”4 The bulk of support for McCormick’s bold theory is a narrative of each Court since the Charter’s birth. Chief Justice of Canada Brian Dickson’s court framed Charter rights, Antonio Lamer’s court expanded them, Beverly McLachlin’s court contained them—these narratives all support McCormick’s one simple thesis: the “forward motion of Charter interpretation is at an end.”5 We have returned to a ‘new normal.’

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207