A Tale of Two Metaphors: A Narrative Take on the Canadian Constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sheds light on the fundamental role that narratives and metaphors play in shaping how we think, talk, and argue about the Canadian Constitution. More specifically, the article makes the case that two competing types of metaphors—dynamic and static—largely fashion Canadian constitutional law. The influential metaphors of the “living tree” and “constitutional architecture” represent prime examples of these central conceptual categories. This article argues that each of these categories stands for different views of the Constitution and, as such, influences the types of stories we tell about it. The case studies undertaken here show that each metaphor sustains dominant narratives about the Constitution, narratives whose structure mostly correspond to the archetypal “birth” and “rescue” stories. As narratives and metaphors influence our cognition and help us reason about abstract concepts and ideas (a large part of our work as jurists) we would be wise to pay closer attention to them. This article is a call, in short, for greater narrative awareness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".