From Ford v. Québec to the Act Respecting the Laicity of the State : A Distinctive Quebec Theory and Practice of the Notwithstanding Clause
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal theories and practices can sometimes be compared to volcanoes. Formed in the past and remaining quiet for ages, these peaceful giants in the background scenery appear dormant, taken for granted, uninteresting even, save for a few experts — until one day they erupt in the most spectacular fashion in a sudden torrent of heated activity that changes the entire landscape. In Canadian constitutional law, the notwithstanding clauses contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which allows a legislature to willingly set aside the supercedence of the fundamental Canadian Charter rights regarding a specific law or body of law are such volcanoes. Formed in the mid 1970’s through the early 1980’s, the notwithstanding mechanism last generated significant attention in its early stages, in 1988, when the Canadian Charter’s override was analyzed by the Supreme Court in the Ford v. Qu bec case and when the Quebec Charter’s override was invoked in the subsequent Act to Amend Bill 101, Charte de la langue française.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".