The impact of charter-based judicial review on pan-Canadian cultural citizenship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation evaluates the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) jurisprudence on Canada's cultural rights structure and cultural citizenship. In total, the dissertation analyzes 49 Supreme Court Charter decisions in the areas of minority language, multiculturalism and aboriginal issues, as well as their reception by governmental authorities. It argues that Charter-based judicial review has confirmed and pushed further the choice Canada made after the Second World War to promote a polyethnic citizenship. The dissertation also formulates three larger theoretical claims. First, that the recognition of specific cultural rights for certain groups that go beyond fundamental political and civil rights brings about positive legal change for minorities. This has especially been the case for the Anglophone minority inside Quebec and the Francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for aboriginal communities across Canada. Secondly, that constitutionally entrenching rights and the transfer of power to the judiciary to invalidate laws that contravene those rights, is crucial for greater accommodation of diversity. As shown in the Canadian case, the Supreme Court's rulings in favour of minorities have been enforced by governmental authorities. Thirdly, that institutional nation-building objectives limit judicial review's potential for facilitating greater accommodation of diversity. The ideal of a polyethnic pan-Canadian citizenship prevents the recognition of new self-government rights for aboriginal peoples and Francophone Quebecers, even though there is interpretive space for such a constitutional reading.
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 | 0.060 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".