Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let us now consider a further ‘subject-matter’ of Canadian constitutional law, the Canadian Bill of Rights. 1 Although the Supreme Court’s judgment in R . v. Drybones 2 elevated the expectations which liberal constitutionalists had for the Canadian Bill of Rights, subsequent judgments slowly have whittled away the meaning, scope, and legal effect of the Bill. 3 Explanations for the demise of the Bill have varied from its statutory — as opposed to constitutional — character, 4 to its draftmanship, 5 to the influence of Dicey, 6 and to faulty legal analysis. 7 I wish to connect the demise of the Canadian Bill of Rights to a constitutional image, one whose boundaries we have just experienced in Laskin’s constitutional amendment judgments. In other words, I aim to show, once again, that Canadian Bill of Rights judgments speak to constitutional imagery. Early in the Bill’s life, Canadian higher and lower court judges realized that in examining the meaning of the text, judges are inevitably called upon to ask a prior question: namely, ‘how can the judiciary account for, explain, differentiate, assimilate, or respond to the Bill, given a constitutional image which begins and ends with externally posited rules?’ Is the Bill really a part of ‘the Constitution’? If so, why? If not, why not?
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.010 |
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".