Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The comparison between the negative and positive roles of constitutional courts provides an interesting perspective on the nature of judicial review and judicial activism in a particular country. Decisions in which courts explicitly require governments to take positive steps either to comply with the Constitution or to provide remedies for constitutional violations are examples of judicial activism in the sense that the unelected judiciary require elected legislatures and governments to act. That said, the more traditional role of judges as negative legislators with powers to invalidate unconstitutional laws and actions may effectively require positive government regulation to be enacted in response. In the modern world, it may not be acceptable for courts acting as a negative legislator to have the final word, and the negative remedies of courts may invoke positive legislative responses from governments. Hence, the distinction between courts acting in a negative or positive fashion may be less clear than when first articulated by Kelsen. This more nuanced understanding of the role of the court as a positive legislator is of particular importance in Canada because of work that has demonstrated frequent legislative replies to Supreme Court of Canada decisions that have simply invalidated legislation as inconsistent with the Canada's constitutional bill of rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This chapter starts with a brief description of the system of judicial review under the Canadian Constitution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.512 | 0.178 |
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".