Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les lois adoptées par le Parlement doivent respecter la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Cette thèse examine les différents processus du système parlementaire canadien qui assurent la conformité des projets de loi à la Charte et arrive à la conclusion que la constitutionalité de certains types de législation n'est pas vérifiée par un processus formalisé. De plus, les processus primaires de vérification au sein du Parlement ne reflètent pas comment les tribunaux évaluent la législation contestée en vertu de la Charte. Tandis que les processus semblent se concentrer sur l'identification de défauts anticonstitutionnels qui pourraient être remédiés par un amendement, le processus parlementaire peut aller à l'encontre d'une correction des défauts anticonstitutionnels présents dans des projets de loi, peu importe comment ces défauts ont été identifiés. Cette thèse explore comment la pratique parlementaire pourrait empêcher les efforts menés à garantir la constitutionalité des projets de loi.
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 | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".