SECTION 33 AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGISLATURES AND COURTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of the Constitution Act, 19821 was greatly debated. While many of the substantive provisions received considerable attention by various committees and interested organizations, the limitation provisions, sections 1 and 33 were particularly contentious. Today, I would like to discuss the early vision of the new relationship to be forged between the judicial and legislative branches of government.2 Sections 1 and 33 were intended to strike an appropriate balance between law-maker and law-reviewer. Each safeguarded abuse by the other. Throughout the drafting period, however, many expressed concern about shifting Canada’s political system from a parliamentary supremacy to a constitutional one. Specifically, how each would respond to their new roles in light of sections 1 and 33. To determine whether these concerns have materialized, I will compare these suspicions with the actual relationship that has evolved between the courts and legislatures since the entrenchment of the Constitution Act, 1982.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".