Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author surveys various theories related to the concept of constitutional amendment, reviewing the importance of the notion of authorship to the amending process, and the related theories about constitutional legitimacy and judicial activism. In seeking an alternative conceptualization of authorship that is applicable to constitutional amendment, she reviews Michel Foucault's essay on authorship, and specifically his notion of the transdiscursive author who originates a "return" to an original text, which she presents as a useful context in which to read the constitutional amendment process. Constitutional discourse, using Foucault's approach to discourse, occupies a significant cultural and social position. She then provides a reading of four Supreme Court of Canada judgments on the issue of constitutional amendment (The Senate Reference, the Patriation Reference, the Quebec Veto Reference, and the Secession Reference), arguing that the Court moves towards a discursive view of Canadian constitutionalism and amendment that conceptualizes the legitimate amending authors of the Canadian constitution as the Canadian people, recognizing the relevance of the Constitutional text itself, the nature of Canadian democracy, regionalism, and Charter values. Thus, the author argues, the Court's analysis of constitutional amendment provides a significant moment in nation building by constituting Canadian citizens as self-governing, self-constituting, and self-writing.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".