MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122947590 · doi:10.5040/9781472561312.ch-002

Canada: Protecting Rights in a ‘Worldwide Rights Culture’. An Empirical Study of the Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court of Canada (1982–2010)

2014· book-chapter· en· W3122947590 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHart Publishing eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the adoption of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC or Court) has established itself as one of the most progressive constitutional judges worldwide. Expressly endowing the Court with powers of judicial review for the protection of constitutionally-entrenched rights, this constitutional Bill of Rights changed the Court’s role and hermeneutic approach, in a system rooted in the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy.
\n
\nThe Charter - inspired by the United States Bill of Rights and several other international human rights documents - fostered the openness to foreign legal sources already typical of a common law high court and prompted the Court to refer to an even broader range of foreign jurisdictions.
\n
\nThis Chapter presents an empirical analysis of the Court’s decisions issued between 1982 and 2010. My research shows that the SCC, in deciding constitutional cases and interpreting the newly enacted Charter has consistently considered other jurisdictions. My goal is to achieve a better understanding of the decision-making process informing the Court’s activity in today’s globalised legal context and of the role played by the Charter in this process. Referring to cases decided by - among others - American, Australian, British and various European courts, the SCC has, over the years, established its Charter jurisprudence by drawing critical inspiration from foreign judicial decisions and adapting their legal principles to the unique features of Canada’s legal system and society.
\n
\nSection II of the Chapter provides an overview of Canada’s constitutional and institutional history since the country’s foundation as a member of the British Commonwealth. Section III focuses on the empirical study, its methodology, qualitative and quantitative results, detailing - with tables and graphs - the Court’s use of foreign precedents in constitutional cases, both in general and with specific regard to United States precedents. It also addresses the role played by section 1 of the Charter in promoting such citations. Finally, in Section IV conclusions are drawn in order to assess the extent, quality and future of the SCC’s attitude toward citations of foreign precedents.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it