Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation-based arguments in support of courts adopting a large and liberal attitude on intervention were persuasive at the outset of the Charter era. Due to the newness of the document at the time, a compelling case could be made that public participation in Charter challenges was a vital component of developing that document in a way that aligned with the core democratic commitments of the Canadian state. But the persuasiveness of such arguments has waned over time. If one accepts a common law approach to constitutional interpretation – where judicial activism is held in check by way of established precedent – arguments based on the participatory rights belonging to those potentially impacted by court decisions appear to be past their due date. This does not mean, however, that courts no longer have any democratic responsibilities concerning the practice of intervention. The positive contribution this article makes is to establish two alternative bases that can account for that responsibility — one inspired by the role intervention plays in encouraging public deliberation; and a second on the increased confidence the practice instills in judicial decision-making. In both cases, the ground of the responsibility is rather weak and can thus be easily defeated. Nevertheless, that courts have this responsibility at all offers a better explanation for why, even in times when an intervening party might not satisfy the strict criteria pertaining to the practice, there is reason to allow that intervention to proceed.
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 | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".