Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian courts have in recent decades favoured a modern or co-operative approach to the interpretation of the division of legislative powers in the Canadian Constitution. The courts interpret federal and provincial legislative powers in a generous and dynamic fashion, in a manner that allows for a great deal of overlap and interplay between those powers. The idea of balance or equal autonomy is also central to the jurisprudence: the courts aim to accord equal weight and consideration to the claims of provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament when they seek to exercise their autonomy to pursue distinct policy objectives within their respective spheres of legislative jurisdiction. However, several features of the modern jurisprudence operate asymmetrically in favour of the federal Parliament. To be faithful to the principle of equal autonomy, the role played by these doctrines - especially the interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy doctrines - needs to be more consistently constrained.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".