Through which glass darkly? Constitutional principle in legality and constitutionality review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United Kingdom have decided very similar cases on the permissibility of high fees for access to adjudication. The outcomes of the cases were similar: the fees were struck down. In the Canadian case, they were held to infringe s 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867; in the United Kingdom, they were said to be a violation of the common law right of access to courts not authorized by statute. Yet a comparison of the reasoning of the two supreme courts is instructive. While the UK Supreme Court forthrightly and thoughtfully engaged with the impact of the fees at issue on the Rule of Law, the Canadian one failed to do so and instead relied on a strained interpretation of a constitutional provision of questionable relevance. This suggests that, perhaps surprisingly, legality review, being less bound up with constitutional text and causing courts less anxiety about its legitimacy, can allow the courts better to canvass the real issues cases implicating constitutional rights and principles present than constitutionality review.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".