Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comment takes up the question of what considerations ought to shape our understanding of section 33. We do not engage directly with the attributes or failings of the current and limited judicial treatment of section 33. Instead, our focus is on the political ramifications of using section 33 in the current political climate. More specifically, we use Quebec’s Bill 21 as a reference point to highlight some deep issues about how section 33 has been integrated into and shapes constitutional discourse. Our analysis pays critical attention to the unique position of Muslim women in Quebec and is framed from the perspective of intersectional feminist equality thinking. From this grounding, we argue that the current legal treatment of section 33 establishes, contrary to the promises of proponents of the override, no equilibrium between parliamentary and judicial powers. Rather, section 33 unavoidably guarantees that majoritarian politics prevail, irrespective of the minority rights issues at play. Prioritizing majoritarian opinion and interests in this manner, we suggest, threatens great damage to the constitutional democracy we think we all should want. The result is a democratic comity in which critical aspects of substantive equality and participatory rights for the most vulnerable and marginal are negated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".