The 2018 Pan-Canadian Securities Regulation Reference: Dualist Federalism to the Rescue of Cooperative Federalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, the impact of Canadian federalism on securities regulation returned one more time to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its Reference re Pan-Canadian Securities Regulation, the Court had once more to clarify “who can do what” with regards to capital markets. But it was also tasked with assessing the normative instruments through which federal partners were attempting to act in a coordinated fashion. The Court’s advisory opinion offers a relatively predictable interpretation of the division of powers in economic matters, and more specifically, the scope of federal jurisdiction over “Trade and Commerce”. However, more significantly, the reference raised a number of fundamental questions about the dominant and competing conceptions of Canadian federalism, the role of courts in monitoring the behaviour of members of the federation, the legal status of intergovernmental agreements, and the fluid line dividing law and politics in the practice and theory of federalism.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| 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".