Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty years ago, in a tense national political context, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered judgment in three cases that have had a profound impact on Canadian society and constitutional law: Ford v. Québec (A.G.) and its related appeal, Devine v. Québec (A.G.), and Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (A.G.) decided a few months apart1. Against the backdrop of language conflicts in Québec and constitutional reform at the national level, this Supreme Court trilogy established the foundations of freedom of expression and the application of the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the quasi-constitutional nature of Québec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Government of Québec was represented by Yves de Montigny — now a Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal — as lead counsel. On the occasion of the trilogy’s 30th anniversary, Justice de Montigny was invited to the Université de Montréal, Faculty of Law, to share with first-year students his reflections on the three Supreme Court decisions as well as his experience as a young lawyer at the forefront of the major constitutional debates of the time.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".