The Problem of Threshold in the Emergencies Act – A Triple Incapacity Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the framing of the threshold for declaring a national emergency in section 3 of Canada’s Emergencies Act reproduces an unhelpful anxiety that is commonplace among theorists and practitioners of emergency powers — namely: the concern that unexpected catastrophic events require exceptional, ungovernable powers to handle them. Section 3 defines the thresholds for a national emergency within a triple-incapacity framework: incapacity on a provincial level (or) incapacity on a federal level (and) legal incapacity. On the face of it, this framework creates a very high threshold for the declaration of emergencies, but it also reproduces a language of exception that orients officials and the public towards the very extreme case in which competence is lost. This is an incongruous framing – it is responsible for ambiguity and endless quarrels about whether there is “no other law” and “no other capacity”, evading the purpose of emergency government which should be focused on capacities: the ability to construct and reconstruct — regularized, coordinated, multifaceted, multijurisdictional emergency management capabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".