Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, Irvin Studin provides a wide-ranging audit of Canada's Constitution, broadly defined, to distill an original picture of Canadian strategic power in the world. Whereas Canadian constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence are typically rooted in considerations of federalism and Charter rights, this article attempts to usher in a 'third school' of Canadian constitutional discourse exercised by the relationship between the Constitution and strategy - that is, the ways in which the Constitution explains and informs the federal state's capacity to pursue strategic interests in the world. The said audit focuses on the constitutional treatment of the diplomatic and military instruments of the Canadian state, as well as the constitutional treatment of key 'factors of strategic power' like executive efficiency, natural resources, the economy and the national population - factors of power that impact the potency of the diplomatic and military instruments. The audit centers around what Studin calls Canada's Strategic Constitution, and issues in a determination that while Canada was not, at its constitutional genesis, made to project strategic power in the world, and while Canada lacks a deep jurisprudential culture of strategic affairs, the federal state indeed has significant strategic capacity, that is, Canada's Constitution suggests considerable Canadian strategic power, even if policy-political praxis does not necessarily translate this theoretical constitutional capacity into on-the-ground outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".