MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Notwithstanding Clause

2017· book-chapter· en· W2906206383 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janet L. Hiebert

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLegislaturePoliticsPolitical sciencePower (physics)Section (typography)Equal Protection ClauseLaw and economicsLawSociologyBusinessConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The notwithstanding clause in section 33 has always been the Charter’s most controversial provision. Although rarely invoked, a failure to use this power should not be equated with a willingness to abide by judicial norms about the Charter. This chapter analyses the political life of the notwithstanding clause. It examines the origins of the notwithstanding clause, its uses, its influence on constitutional ideals beyond Canada, and the political consequences associated with a deeply entrenched reticence to invoke the notwithstanding clause. This discussion addresses whether current reluctance to use section 33 is better explained by risk aversion than by legislative compliance with the Charter.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207