Tarification pancanadienne du carbone, intérêt national et autonomie locale : une question d’équilibre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En juin 2018, dans la foulee de ses engagements internationaux, le Parlement canadien adoptait un regime legislatif de tarification du carbone. Les enjeux opposant l’exploitation des ressources naturelles et la protection de l’environnement divisent les collectivites et provinces au Canada. Trois provinces ont d’ailleurs conteste la validite constitutionnelle de ce regime au motif qu’il empieterait de facon massive dans des champs de competences que la Constitution attribue exclusivement aux provinces. Le Procureur general du Canada a defendu la validite de cette loi sur la base du pouvoir residuaire federal d’adopter des lois pour assurer « la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada » qui permet, notamment, au Parlement d’adopter des lois sur des matieres nouvelles qui transcendent les interets locaux. Ce texte portera sur les impacts potentiels de ce pouvoir sur l’equilibre entre l’autonomie provinciale et l’interet national qui est au cœur du federalisme canadien. Nous soutiendrons que si le regime federal de tarification du carbone est valide, la Cour supreme devrait etre prudente et ne pas donner carte blanche au federal en matiere de lutte contre les gaz a effet de serre.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".