Introduction: The Silences of the Reference Re Senate Reform (les silences du renvoi relatif à la réforme du sénat)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The author addresses the 2014 Reference re Senate Reform and introduces a special volume of the McGill Law Journal devoted to the Reference. It focuses primarily on the issues left in the penumbra of the Reference itself. It is in these conspicuous voids where the authors introduced here enlighten readers on the full political context of the Reference and bring to the forefront what the Court did not, or could not, say about complex political and constitutional issues in Canada.French Abstract: Les avis exprimes par la Cour supreme du Canada sur les questions posees dans un renvoi par le gouverneur en conseil constituent toujours des moments forts dans la vie juridique au Canada. Les textes reunis dans ce numero special de la Revue de droit de McGill apportent un eclairage essentiel sur certains enjeux fondamentaux touchant la reforme du Senat canadien, et sur la contribution de la Cour supreme a ce debat recurrent.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".