The Judicial Role in a Diverse Federation: Lessons from the Supreme Court of Canada, by Robert Schertzer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The federal system of governance has been posited as a solution to issues of internal conflict and division within states. Over the last century the global prevalence of the federal system has increased. There are currently twenty-six states (accounting for forty per cent of the global population) that have or are in the process of adopting a federal system—including three of the so-called “BRIC” emerging global powers. While the motivating theory of the federal system is one that often seeks to pacify, contain, or eliminate conflict among subnational groups and governments, such an ideal is not as easily achieved in practice. Many federal states are formed amidst conflict and competing visions of national identity. Thus, it is often not only the division of power and resources within the federation that is contested but also the framework of the federation itself. This underlying struggle is borne out in political arenas through self-determination movements and in courts through legal disputes over division of powers. In turn, states rely on federal institutions to proactively and reactively address intra-state conflict. Situated among these institutions are “federal arbiters” who serve the critical role of adjudicating conflicts over power and resources.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".