Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian constitutional law is seldom criticised for its failure to live up to ideal of Rule of Law. This article argues that it should be so criticised. A number of widely accepted or uncontroversial Rule of Law requirements ― need for general, stable, and prospective rules, congruence between books and law action, and availability of impartial, independent courts to adjudicate legal disputes ― are compromised by a number of ideas already accepted or increasingly advocated by Canadian lawyers, judges, and officials. This article describes four of these ideas, to which it refers as politicization techniques, because they transform what purports to be the supreme law of Canada into a set of malleable political commitments. These are, first, deference to legislatures or application of a margin of appreciation and presumption of constitutionality in constitutional adjudication; second, constitutional dialogue in which courts not merely defer, but actively give way to legislative decisions; substitution of political for legal judgment through application of notwithstanding clause of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and rewriting of constitutional law by courts under banner of living tree constitutional interpretation. The article concludes with an appeal to those who profess commitment to Rule of Law in relation to Constitution not to embrace or endorse means by which it is subverted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".