Jardinage cannabique et fédéralisme : la question du partage des compétences appliquée à l’autorisation de cultiver du cannabis à domicile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis la légalisation du cannabis en octobre 2018, une importante question demeure sans réponse claire : qui, des provinces ou du gouvernement fédéral, peut validement autoriser la culture de cannabis à domicile? Le Parlement fédéral a de nombreuses fois affirmé que la culture à domicile touchait au coeur de sa compétence en matière criminelle et que la permission de la culture personnelle était essentielle pour contrer le marché illégal de la substance. Le Québec et le Manitoba ont toutefois interdit cette pratique, jugeant que leur compétence en matière privée leur permettait de légiférer ainsi. Depuis, cette question demeure sans réponse claire, et les citoyens se tournent vers les tribunaux pour trancher cette épineuse question. C’est donc sur le débat de la permission de la culture de cannabis à domicile, touchant au coeur du partage des compétences et du fédéralisme, que portera le présent article.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".