Law, Convention, Prerogative: Reflections Prompted by the Canadian Constitutional Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The federal Government wished to terminate the residual British role in Canada&s;s constitutional arrangements, enact a Charter of Rights binding on both the federal Government and the provinces, and provide for future constitutional amendment to be effected in Canada. The result of the majority view was that the Canadian House of Commons and Senate could secure by simple resolution what the 1867 Act denied them authority to achieve by statute. The reluctance of the majority of the Supreme Court to accept the arguments of the provinces on legality was, of course, largely attributable to their adherence to the orthodox law/convention dichotomy. It is sometimes argued that the courts recognize the existence of conventions in the course of interpreting a statute, but that the conventions themselves are not enforced in the way that a legal rule is enforced. The interaction of law and politics is well illustrated by an earlier Canadian controversy over the respective limits of federal and provincial powers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".