DU NON-DROIT DE L’APPLICATION DE LA CHARTE CANADIENNE DES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article qui suit ambitionne de démontrer que l’idée selon laquelle l’application de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés par les tribunaux réponde à des normes juridiques, autrement dit, l’idée qu’il existe un « droit » relatif à l’application de cette Charte, est l’un des plus grands mythes de la science du droit public canadien. Cette démonstration est faite à partir de la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada. Elle consiste en une mise au jour, non seulement des contradictions internes de la motivation de certains arrêts particuliers et de la jurisprudence en général, mais également, à la faveur de l’analyse des décisions où la Charte s’est appliquée sans que la Cour n’indique en vertu de quoi, du décalage qui sépare la jurisprudence (composée de conclusions motivées) de la pratique judiciaire effective (qui s’étend aux conclusions non motivées). Ce n’est donc qu’accessoirement que l’article propose un moyen de combler l’écart qui sépare actuellement le droit de la pratique judiciaire effective, soit de reconnaître une « Drittwirkung » aux droits et libertés que garantit la Charte.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".