The Busy Harbours of Canadian Federalism: The Division of Powers and its Doctrines in the McLachlin Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The past fifty years of division of powers jurisprudence has been more about the doctrines and methods of analysis of legal federalism – pith and substance, double aspect, ancillary powers, paramountcy, interjurisdictional immunity – than about new understandings of ss 91 and 92 powers. This trend only intensified with the arrival of the Constitution Act, 1982, the courts’ focus largely diverted to the Charter and aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has been intent on encouraging flexible, co-operative federalism whereby legislation is generally upheld and disputes allocated to the intergovernmental process. The McLachlin Court has continued the trend of upholding legislation; it has also made important adjustments to constitutional doctrines and methods of analysis to promote this sort of co-operative federalism French Abstract: Depuis au moins 50 ans les tribunaux canadiens traitent des approches methodologiques – le caractere veritable, le double aspect, les pouvoirs accessoires, la preponderance, l’exclusivite des competences – beaucoup plus du renouvellement de notre comprehension du partage des competences legislatives. Cette tendance est encore plus marquee depuis l’arrivee de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, vu l’importance de la Charte et des droits proteges par l’art. 35. La Cour supreme du Canada fait des efforts afin d’encourager un federalisme flexible et cooperatif, selon lequel on invalide des lois infrequemment et l’on gere les desaccords au niveau intergouvernemental. Cette tendance persiste sous la direction de la juge en chef McLachlin; la Cour supreme a aussi fait des ajustements importants aux approches methodologiques afin d’encourager ce genre de federalisme cooperatif.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".