L’Obligation De Faire Adopter La Version Française Des Textes Constitutionnels Canadiens (The Obligation to Adopt the French Version of Canadian Constitutional Texts)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Plusieurs Canadiennes et Canadiens seraient etonnes d’apprendre que la majorite des textes constitutionnels du Canada ne sont pas officiellement bilingues, incluant notamment la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. Bien qu’une version francaise de ce document fondamental ait ete redigee a l’epoque de la Confederation par Eugene-Philippe Dorion, celle-ci n’a jamais ete deposee au Parlement de Westminster. Seule la version anglaise de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 jouit du statut officiel. Il en est de meme pour les autres textes constitutionnels fondamentaux qui ont ete adoptes a Westminster pour le compte du Canada. Parmi les vingt-cinq textes declares dans la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 comme faisant partie de la «Constitution du Canada», seulement sept d’entre eux ont ete adoptes par le Parlement, dans les deux langues officielles comme le requiert l’article 133 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. Dans le present texte, les auteurs analysent l’obligation federale aux termes de l’article 55 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, de faire adopter «des qu’elle est prete» la version francaise des textes constitutionnels du Canada en question. Cette obligation est analysee a la lumiere des paragraphes 16(1) et (3) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes et de la Partie VII de la Loi sur les langues officielles. Les principes constitutionnels de la protection des minorites, de la primaute du droit et celui du federalisme interviendront egalement pour etoffer un argumentaire dont l’objet avoue est de mettre fin a l’immobilisme dans ce dossier et d’envisager la mise en œuvre de l’article 55 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. English Abstract: Many Canadians would be surprised to learn that the majority of Canada’s constitutional texts, including the Constitution Act of 1867, are not officially bilingual. Although a French version of this fundamental document was drafted by Eugene-Philippe Dorion at the time of the Confederation, it was never tabled in the Westminster Parliament. Accordingly, only the English version of the Constitution Act of 1867 has official status. The same is true of the other fundamental constitutional texts that were passed in Westminster on behalf of Canada. Of the twenty-five texts declared in the Constitution Act of 1982 as part of the “Constitution of Canada”, only seven were enacted by Parliament in both official languages, as required by section 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867. In the present text, the authors analyze the federal obligation, under section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982, to have the French version of the constitutional texts adopted «as expeditiously as possible». This obligation is analyzed in light of subsections 16(1) and (3) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The constitutional principles of the protection of minorities, rule of law and federalism will also be used to argue for the end of a standstill in order to consider the implementation of section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".