Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter describes how public international legal norms are received into Canadian domestic law. The rules governing international law’s reception in Canada originate in British constitutionalism and English common law. But the Supreme Court of Canada has developed this tradition by insisting that international law is part of the context in which Canada’s domestic laws are enacted. This has led to a notable openness to internationally-informed legal arguments and a strong commitment to the interpretive presumption that domestic law conforms with the State’s international obligations. While treaties still require legislative implementation to take direct effect in domestic law, they can have indirect interpretive effects even without legislation. Customary international law does not require legislation; it is automatically incorporated by the common law. Even Canada’s leading constitutional instrument, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seems now to be interpreted according to a presumption that it at least meets the minimum requirements of international human rights law. Traditional judicial avoidance techniques such as act of state and political questions are notable by their absence in Canadian reception jurisprudence. Courts still find ways to disregard international law in particular cases, but the trajectory is towards using it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".