Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada released eight decisions in 2005 that dealt with challenges to the validity of legislation based on the division of powers in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Not since 1983, before Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cases dominated its constitutional docket, has the Court decided so many federalism cases in a single year. In the 2005 decisions, the judges were united around an approach to federalism disputes that the Court has consolidated over the past 15 years. With the exception of a lone justice in one case, in 2005 the Court was unanimous in affirming the validity and operation of the eight statutes challenged on division of powers grounds. A consistent posture of judicial restraint — or generous interpretations of the scope of both provincial and federal legislative jurisdiction — has been the defining feature of the Court’s recent federalism jurisprudence. The consensus on the current Court that declarations of ultra vires on federalism grounds should be issued rarely — with “extreme caution” in Patrick Monahan’s words — has been developing for two
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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".