Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The judiciary plays a prominent role in the maintenance and development of the Canadian constitutional system. Apart from maintaining the rule of law and the administration of justice, the courts and the members of the judiciary are important constitutional actors, as they provide interpretation of the federal division of powers and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Understanding the evolution of Canadian federalism is incomplete without considering the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), Canada's highest court until 1949, and the Supreme Court of Canada after the abolition of the JCPC. This article discusses the structure and functions of the court system of the Supreme Court of Canada. The first section discusses the constitutional basis of the court system in Canada and the boundaries of judicial responsibilities between provincial and federal governments. The second section focuses on the appointment of judges and the reform movements by the federal and provincial governments since the 1960s. The third section discusses the Supreme Court of Canada and the three significant events that formed this institution: the abolition of appeals to the JCPC in 1949; the eradication of appeals as of right in 1975; and the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The last section discusses the courts and their contribution to the evolution of Canadian federalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.014 |
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".