Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern societies, there are considerable feats of compromise that need to occur if a democratic government is to exist and thrive. Although power ultimately resides in the people and their representatives, it is important that this power is not exercised in a way that is willful or arbitrary. In particular, a commitment to genuine democracy demands that the majority is not permitted to ride roughshod over minorities. Any mode of responsible government, therefore, needs to maintain a series of checks and balances so that the frequently diverse and occasionally contradictory interests of different groups are maintained in political equilibrium. Among other things, this means that both popular sovereignty and political accountability must be combined in a stable and effective compact of just governance. It often falls to the law to map out a detailed way for the ship of state to negotiate these difficult seas. This is often an unenviable task that places the courts at the very center of various political storms. In the history of democratic governance, the judges have been thrust on to center stage and have been cast in the alternating roles of heroes and villains. Indeed, as societies become more fractured and governments become less tolerated, the courts are called on, for good and bad, to be the preferred venue of last resort. Less actors and more authors, they rewrite society's constitutional and institutional script as they follow it. A key notion at the heart of these engagements is the Rule of Law. On its fiftieth anniversary, a Canadian case points up the challenges and pitfalls to be faced in ensuring that this vital, if contested, principle of political democracy retains its relevance and bite.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.235 | 0.078 |
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".