MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593491886 · doi:10.21991/c94h4w

The Incremental Evolution of National Receivership Law and the Elusive Search for Federal Purpose

2017· article· en· W2593491886 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Roderick J. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatuteConstitutionalitySupreme courtLawReceivershipLegislationPolitical scienceUltra viresStatute of limitationsBankruptcyDoctrine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There was a period when provincial legislation that trespassed too deeply into the federal field of bankruptcy and insolvency law was likely to be declared to be ultra vires as an invasion of the exclusive federal power in relation to that field. The five-to-four split in the 1978 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Robinson v Countrywide Factors Ltd was very much a turning point. Thereafter, the constitutionality of provincial legislation was almost invariably determined through the application of the paramountcy principle. Pursuant to this principle, a provincial statute is rendered inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal statute. The Supreme Court of Canada has created a two-branched test for determining the presence of a conflict. Under the first branch, there is an operational conflict when it is impossible to comply with both the federal and the provincial statute. Under the second branch, there is a conflict when the operation of the provincial statute frustrates the purpose of the federal statute. Either type of conflict will render the provincial statute inoperative...

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207