MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Politics of Constitutional Law

2017· book-chapter· en· W2965375933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allan C. Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPoliticsPolitical scienceLawDemocracyJurisprudenceIdeologyConstitutionGovernment (linguistics)Law and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract After almost 25 years of jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, many of the fears expressed by critics of the Charter have come to pass—judicial review under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms operates as an institutional device to curb more than advance democratic politics and to entrench more than challenge a conservative ideology. The Charter is indeed a potent political weapon, but one that has been and continues to be used to benefit vested interests in society and to debilitate further an already imperfect democratic process of government. For such critics, whether or not that was the intention of its proponents and drafters is beside the point. Indeed, despite some of the best intentions of the ‘Charter-party’, the courts have not delivered on the touted democratic promise of the Charter. This chapter canvasses different critical challenges to the Charter.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207