MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133595346 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1408

The Missing Constitutionalism of Canada v Vavilov

2021· article· en· W3133595346 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kate Glover Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalismAppealCitizenshipPolitical scienceConstitutionAdministrative lawLawLegislationArgument (complex analysis)Constitutional lawJudicial reviewSupreme courtLegalism (Western philosophy)Law and economicsSociologyPoliticsDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent opinion in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov—the biggest administrative law case in a decade—pays insufficient attention to the constitutional dimensions of the case. Vavilov represents, therefore, a missed opportunity to engage deeply with issues of structural and administrative constitutionalism, issues that arise in countless public law cases, including in Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General). This article argues that when Vavilov’s constitutional dimensions are brought to the surface, they reveal neglected possibilities in the Toronto (City) appeal and map some of the legal terrain on which the case could be received and should be analyzed. This article presents this argument in three parts. First, it provides an overview of Vavilov, pointing to some of its key legal developments and implications for administrative law. This part considers whether the majority reasons in Vavilov promote a thin approach to constitutionalist reasoning in administrative cases. Second, it considers two additional matters of constitutional structure that are at stake (but insufficiently addressed) in Vavilov: (a) the consequences of an inconsistency between legislation and unwritten constitutional principles; and (b) the significance of institutional design to understanding the role, relationships, and reform of public actors. Each of these matters is also at stake in Toronto (City) and this part shows why it is important to look to Vavilov when resolving them. This article concludes with a discussion of a third matter of constitutional structure and administrative constitutionalism that is implicated (but neglected) in Vavilov, and is of relevance to Toronto (City): the place and status of the administrative state within the Canadian constitutional order. Vavilov was a perfect opportunity to engage with decades of administrative law developments in order to address some of that neglect, but unfortunately, the opportunity was missed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.022
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207