The Constitution of Canada, 2017 (La Loi Constitutionnelle Du Canada, 2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French abstract: « Et si, dans le cadre du 150e anniversaire du Canada, nous reecrivions la Constitution canadienne? Pour la decoloniser, la rendre plus inclusive, moins poussiereuse, plus moderne, plus lisible? » C’est le defi que nous avons donne a 26 etudiant.e.s des facultes de droit de l’Universite de Montreal et de l’Universite McGill. En trois mois, en equipes, ils et elles ont redige une Loi constitutionnelle du Canada, 2017, bilingue, qui comprend plusieurs innovations (et un fabuleux preambule!), puis ont procede a son adoption lors d’une seance speciale tenue dans l’edifice du Parlement a Ottawa. Le resultat est une perspective creative de la part de jeunes juristes sur une version contemporaine de la Constitution canadienne – signe que les « conversations constitutionnelles » demeurent possibles et pertinentes au Canada. English abstract: “What if, in the context of Canada’s 150th anniversary, we re-wrote the Canadian Constitution? To decolonise it, make it more inclusive, less dusty, more modern, more readable?” This is the challenge we gave 26 students from the faculties of law of the Universite de Montreal and McGill University. In three months, in teams, they drafted a bilingual Constitution of Canada, 2017, which contains a number of innovations (and a fabulous preamble!), and then proceeded to adopt it in a special session held in the Parliament building in Ottawa. The result is a creative opus from young jurists on what a contemporary version of the Canadian Constitution would look like — a signal that “constitutional conversations” remain possible and relevant in Canada.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".