Bibliographic record
Abstract
The political revival of the notwithstanding clause in Canada’s Charter has led to an explosion of literature on section 33, yet few of the arguments about the legitimacy of the override are new. All of the basic positions in the debate were mapped out in the 1980s, resulting in an impasse over the merits of section 33 that we have not moved beyond. This commentary seeks to sidestep this debate by offering a new perspective on an old argument: the override seems out of place in the Charter because without it, the document embodies Ronald Dworkin’s theory of rights as trumps. What is most bothersome to opponents of section 33 is that its inclusion prevents the Charter from reflecting this Kantian, humanist conception of rights. By subordinating rights to the possible whim of the majority, the override reflects a populist or at best utilitarian conception. To read the Charter in this light is to see it not primarily as a legal instrument but as a moral statement.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".