MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112305715

Breaking Ranks (and Precedent): Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74

2020· article· en· W3112305715 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalityAppealLawPolitical scienceSubsidiaritySubstantive due processGovernment (linguistics)Supreme courtSeparation of powersReferendumGreenhouse gasParliamentDoctrineLaw and economicsConstitutionEconomicsEuropean unionPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, Alberta’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Writing for a majority of three judges, Chief Justice Catherine Fraser concluded that the GGPPA could not be upheld on the basis of Parliament’s residual power over matters of “peace, order, and good government” (POGG), nor any other potentially relevant federal head of power. This comment focuses on the majority opinion of the Alberta Court of Appeal, beginning with a summary and some brief commentary (Part II). Part III offers detailed commentary on the majority’s approach to section 92A, subsidiarity, the division of powers analysis generally, several aspects of the national concern doctrine, and the overall tenor of the decision. While we acknowledge that there is some uncertainty in the case law that leaves room for genuine disagreement and arguments both for and against the federal government’s reliance on POGG, in our respectful view the majority is simply incorrect on several fronts and strays far from precedent on others. The judgment is also unhelpfully burdened with rhetoric and value judgments that are hardly relevant to the process of legal reasoning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207