MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109017826

POGG and Treaties: The Role of International Agreements in National Concern Analysis

2020· article· en· W3109017826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gib van Ert

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Environmental Law and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational lawPolitical scienceInternational tradeLawLaw and economicsBusinessEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s international treaty obligations have featured prominently in Privy Council and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on Parliament’s power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada (POGG). How treaties ought properly to be used in determining Parliament’s POGG jurisdiction is a constitutionally fraught question. The federal executive cannot be permitted to extend Parliament’s legislative jurisdiction by making promises to foreign states. Yet the existence of treaty obligations is undoubtedly relevant to the question of whether a given subject has become a matter of national concern. In the upcoming Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act references, the Supreme Court of Canada will confront this problem again. This article seeks to explain how courts may properly use international agreements in POGG cases.\nLes obligations du Canada en vertu des traités internationaux ont occupé une place importante dans la jurisprudence du Conseil privé et de la Cour suprême du Canada concernant le pouvoir du Parlement d’adopter des lois pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada. La question de savoir comment les traités doivent être utilisés pour déterminer la compétence du Parlement en ces matières est une question d’ordre constitutionnel. L’exécutif fédéral ne peut être autorisé à étendre la compétence législative du Parlement en faisant des promesses à des États étrangers. Pourtant, l’existence d’obligations conventionnelles est sans aucun doute pertinente pour déterminer si un sujet donné est devenu un sujet d’intérêt national. La Cour suprême du Canada sera à nouveau confrontée à ce problème lors des prochains renvois relatifs à la Loi sur la tarification de la pollution causée par les gaz à effet de serre. Le présent article cherche à expliquer comment les tribunaux peuvent utiliser correctement les accords internationaux dans les affaires relatives aux lois pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.025
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicInternational Environmental Law and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207