Imperial Tobacco and Trial Lawyers: An Unstable and Unsuccessful Retreat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada established an architectural model of the Constitution through the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Reference re Secession of Quebec. This model has an informing core of “organizing principles” engaging both written and unwritten rules. These two decisions and earlier landmark rulings have used unwritten principles to reach dramatic conclusions. Yet, the Supreme Court departs from this line of authority in Imperial Tobacco in which a strong textual approach is taken. The author argues this decision led to instability in constitutional doctrine that was further complicated in Trial Lawyers. This article explores the strengths of the Judges Reference and the Secession Reference and the need to uphold the use of unwritten constitutional principles while calling for the Imperial Tobacco case to be set aside.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".