The More the Merrier?: Revisiting Interpretive Pluralism in Canadian Administrative Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a panoramic overview of the “interpretive pluralism” (“no one correct interpretation”) discourse in judicial review of a tribunal’s findings of law — starting with the majority decision in CUPE v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp and concluding with the minority decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy — and then proceeds to re-situating this discourse within the larger theoretical debates in the field. Central to this article's analysis are normative and conceptual tensions that exist between the “interpretive pluralism” thesis put forward in CUPE and the principles that inform and animate Canadian administrative law at large, such as the doctrine of the rule of law, the notion of legitimacy, and, most importantly, the orthodox paradigm of “deference as respect” as brought to bear on judicial review of administrative action.
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 | 0.028 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".