Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the status and content of the principle of cooperative federalism in Canadian constitutionalism. It argues that our understanding of cooperative federalism – often called the ‘modern form’ of federalism in Canada - is enriched by looking to constitutional contexts beyond the division of powers. This paper focuses on just one of those contexts, namely, the text and structure of the constitutional amending procedure set out in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982. It contends that when we look to the multilateral procedures of Part V, we see a strong expression of cooperative federalism, one that is embedded in the architecture of Canada’s constitution. This paper then considers the implications of this observation about Part V for the interpretation of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It explores the claim that while the impact of an enriched understanding of cooperative federalism in the division of powers context remains to be worked out in practice and in the jurisprudence, the principle of cooperative federalism could entail some measure of positive obligation on official actors engaged in joint action. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. The Status of Cooperative Federalism in Division of Powers Jurisprudence II. Cooperative Federalism and Part V 1. Cooperative federalism as a descriptive concept 2. Cooperative federalism as an interpretive principle III. Cooperative Federalism as Constitutional Structure CONCLUSION
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".