Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delegation to administrative actors runs rampant in Canada, but courts have generally not accepted a doctrine of non-delegation, like in the American context, to stop this delegation. The most courts have done, over time, is refer to an abstract principle of non-abdication. Put differently, while Parliament and the legislatures can delegate their power, they cannot abdicate it. This paper attempts to shed light on this non-abdication requirement in comparison to the non-delegation doctrine in the United States. Specifically, the paper argues that the non-abdication doctrine in Canada attaches to the recipient of the delegation, rather than the scope of the delegation, as in the American context. This is because of the regent constitutional arrangements in each country. In Canada, because of the continued relevance of parliamentary sovereignty, courts cannot pass over the scope of a delegation. However, in the non-abdication cases, courts have concerned themselves with who receives the delegation: the delegate must be, in some way, politically connected to the delegating power. This doctrine has the most relevance, then, to so-called independent agencies that may lack the connection to the delegating body. The paper examines the conditions for the doctrine's operation and its complications.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".