Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a novel and interdisciplinary account of Canada’s ‘‘political safeguards of federalism”, which are aspects of the political system that help determine and protect the federal-provincial balance of power, in concert with judicial review. It argues that these political safeguards arise, in large part, from the vast intergovernmental apparatus that has been established in Canada in recent decades to manage federal-provincial relations, not the sorts of intragovernmental safeguards of federalism that have been highlighted by federalism scholars in the United States, like the Senate. It describes the capacity, opportunities, and leverage that these intergovernmental safeguards of federalism provide the provinces to block, or limit, perceived federal encroachments, and provides two detailed case studies of situations where they were successfully utilized. It does not argue that these intergovernmental safeguards ‘‘sufficiently” protect provincial jurisdiction, and thus that judicial safeguards of federalism are unnecessary; on the contrary, it highlights various reasons to give these intergovernmental safeguards only ‘‘two cheers” as safeguards of federalism. It argues that these intergovernmental safeguards provide the provinces with the means to check federal encroachments and influence federal policy in some cases, by blocking federal initiatives altogether in some situations, and influencing their design and implementation in others. It suggests that an appreciation of these intergovernmental safeguards is vital to understanding how federalism is safeguarded in Canada, and that more attention ought to be paid to them in discussing the role that the courts do and should play in its federal system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".