The Challenge of Diversity in a Multinational Federation: the Impact of the Judiciary on Pluralism in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Political rhetoric aside, has Canada, 150 years after its foundation, achieved its goal of preserving pluralism? How is pluralism defined within the Canadian framework? What was the judiciary’s contribution to that effect? In other words, how have Canadian courts dealt with pluralism throughout the years? Have they been successful in tackling such a challenge? This paper begins with a brief description of the organization of the Canadian judicial system, namely the hierarchy of the courts, the nomination and compensation of judges, and the guarantees of judicial independence. After that, the paper discusses the evolution of pluralism within the Canadian Courts, from three different viewpoints: a) the separation of powers; b) the institutions, like Senate reform, Supreme Court composition, and Quebec secession; and c) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other parts of the Constitution Act, 1982, where a special focus will be given to language and Aboriginal rights.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".