Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter studies the interplay between federalism and foreign relations law in Canada. As the chapter notes, since Confederation and despite lengthy constitutional talks and the coming of the age of globalization, foreign affairs federalism in Canada remains characterized by the absence of written constitutional rules, the lack of institutionalization, and the important role of government practice in filling that void. Despite past controversies over the Labour Conventions case, the provincial power to implement treaties did not cause any serious foreign relations difficulties, and Canada was able to play an active role as a middle power on the international stage. Nevertheless, the current political and legal framework is such that problems can arise from time to time in the conduct of foreign affairs, if international obligations are incurred without substantial provincial support. Prior consultations with provinces are crucial, and the formulation of treaty reservations may be necessary in some cases. The insufficient political will to better institutionalize cooperation between Ottawa and the provinces in the conduct of foreign affairs continues to be surprising, especially in the light of positive sectoral or ad hoc initiatives. The positive role that provincial paradiplomacy may play in expanding the global influence of Canada could also be better embraced. The emerging obligation to consult with Aboriginal peoples stands in stark contrast with the lack of institutionalization of federal-provincial cooperation on foreign affairs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".