Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the annual review of the Supreme Court’s jurispru-dence for Osgoode Hall’s Annual Constitutional Cases conference. It provides quantitative data on the 2012 Charter jurisprudence and identifies a downward trend in Charter success rates in the McLachlin Court, from 2010 to the present. The paper also offers pointed analysis of two key Charter decisions in this period: R. v. Khawaja and Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (decided early in 2013). Both raised high-stakes questions about the Charter’s fundamental freedoms, and the Court rejected the Charter claims both times, by unanimous decision. The downward trend in Charter success rates, the Court’s unanimity in those key decisions, and the Charter’s mediocre year at the Court inspire a broader reflection, at the end of the paper, of the dynamics at work and what they signify. That reflection considers whether the transformative energy of the Charter’s early years has been spent and is being replaced by a conception of the Charter as a middle-ground document. It explores the significance of that shift, for the Charter as an instrument of progress, and for the Court’s leadership in thinking deeply about the Charter’s promises and how they can be kept.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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".