MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909747325

Th e Protective Function of the Constitutional Amending Formula

2017· article· en· W2909747325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sébastien Grammond

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d'études constitutionnelles · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionParliamentLegislatureSupreme courtLawPolitical sciencePoliticsPower (physics)Enumerated powersInterpretation (philosophy)Separation of powersPhilosophyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Th e Reference re Supreme Court Act and the Reference re Senate Reform have often been interpreted as widening the body of norms that form part of the Constitution. The author submits that in those two references, the Supreme Court of Canada has instead given eff ect to the protective function of the constitutional amending formula. Th is means that the amending formula limits the action of Parliament and the provincial legislatures. A historical and purposive interpretation of sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 leads to the conclusion that the framers of the Constitution intended to limit the power of Parliament and the provincial legislatures to aff ect certain essential characteristics of the main components of Canada’s political system. The author then spells out the consequences of this reading of the two references on possible reforms of the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, the Senate and the electoral 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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d'études constitutionnellesSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207