Canadian Political Science Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While neither the Charter nor federalism want for scholarly attention, the study of the way in which they interact has been piecemeal at best.Where it has been addressed, the relationship is too often assumed to be one-sided: the Charter's "uniform national standards" have run roughshod over federal diversity.James Kelly has begun to address this academic shortcoming with his recent finding that the Supreme Court of Canada has applied the Charter in such a way as to respect provincial diversity.But while this tells us a good deal about the effect of the Charter on federalism, it tells us little of federalism's effect on the Charter.For her part, Katherine Swinton suggests that it might be useful for provinces to resist the Charter's homogenizing tendencies by grounding their defences of Charter-impugned policy in the language of federalism.This paper attempts to bridge the gap between Kelly and Swinton.Through an examination of several recent Supreme Court decisions as well as provincial arguments therein, it finds: first, further evidence of Kelly's "federalism jurisprudence"; second, that provinces do indeed, at times, frame their defences in the federalist terms; and finally, that the federalism jurisprudence represents more than a simple judicial sensitivity to the needs of a federal system, but is itself a product of the federalist arguments made by provincial governments.In so doing, this paper hopes to promote a better understanding of federalism and the Charter by shifting scholarly attention away from its current preoccupation with the "democratic dialogue," and toward a "federalist dialogue."
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.537 | 0.246 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".