MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413803141 · doi:10.29173/mlj1435

What's 'Necessary' Under the Emergencies Act?

2025· article· en· W4413803141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nomi Claire Lazar

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most jurisdictions, any claim to emergency power must be necessary. But necessity is an ambiguous concept which has historically facilitated abuse. Indeed in the Canadian context, though necessity is a key threshold requirement in the Emergencies Act, it remains a black box, constituting a worrying gap in that Act’s robust framework for accountability and oversight. This paper develops a set of heuristic tools to clarify and rigorously assess claims of necessity, providing a structure for a government’s reason-giving around emergency declarations and measures. Because such reason-giving is critical to the rule of law in a state of emergency I conclude by advocating, in the Canadian context, an amendment to section 61 of the Act: When Government tables measures with Parliament or the Parliamentary Review Committee, they should explicitly state why an order or measure is necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207