Constitutional Cases 2016: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are delighted to offer this introduction to the yearly volume of articles flowing from Osgoode Hall Law School’s annual Constitutional Cases Conference. The articles in this volume offer insightful and illuminating analysis of the constitutional jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 term. In this introduction, we set the frame for these articles with an overview of the “constitutional year” at the Supreme Court, identifying some key patterns, themes, and issues that gave 2016 its distinctive mark. This overview is organized into three parts. As is the custom for these introductions, in Part I, we begin by offering a view of the constitutional jurisprudence of the Court in 2016 “on the numbers”. In Part II we reflect on two larger issues that shaped the Court’s work in 2016: retirements and debates about appointments, and the pressing question of reconciliation and the Constitution. Finally, Part III examines the decisions themselves, directing the reader to articles in this volume which provide in-depth analysis and offering our observations about how these cases participate in broader themes and patterns that have been in our sightlines at the Constitutional Cases conference over the past many years.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".