Le partage des compétences et les relations intergouvernementales: la situation au Canada (Division of Powers and Intergovernmental Relations: Canada's Situation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La repartition des competences incarne les dimensions « self rule » et « joint rule » qui sont l’essence du federalisme. Il existe toutefois un decalage entre la reponse de jure que l’on donne a la question de « qui fait quoi » au sein de la federation, et la reponse de facto. Ce decalage est particulierement important au Canada en raison de l’âge de la federation, de sa culture juridique, de l’interpretation constitutionnelle fluctuante et d’une pratique tres riche de relations intergouvernementales. Cet article tente donc de decoder le federalisme canadien en examinant d’abord la repartition formelle des competences, avant d’explorer les mecanismes qui relativisent fortement ce partage officiel. Malgre la rigidite du cadre constitutionnel, une pratique efficace mais opaque de relations gouvernementales cree une forme de gouvernance a multi-niveaux. English Abstract: The distribution of legislative powers embodies the self-rule and joint rule dimensions that lie at the heart of federalism. However, a discrepancy exists between the legal and factual responses to the question of “who does what” in a federal system. This gap is particularly important in Canada because of the age of the federation, its juridical culture, the fluctuating constitutional interpretation and its rich practice of intergovernmental relations. This article thus seeks to shed light on Canadian federalism by examining the official divisions of power before exploring the mechanisms that tamper this formal divide. Despite the rigidity of the constitutional framework, an efficient but opaque practice of intergovernmental relations creates a form of multilevel governance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".