The Regime Politics of Responsive Judicial Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review essay begins with an overview of Dixon’s argument before explaining why it is empirically mistaken to argue that judicial review under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is weak on her criteria. However, the essay will also argue for how it may be considered “weak” in a very different sense: because the Canadian Supreme Court generally uses the Charter to strategically serve the interests of allied political actors, particularly at the federal level. The essay ultimately argues that judicial review is largely, with some interesting exceptions, responsive to federal (central) regimes. In other words, all judicial review is politically responsive insofar as judges seek to maximize policy goals in the face of institutional constraints. In a context where appellate judicial appointments are controlled by federal (central) governments, as in Canada and the US, we should be particularly skeptical about the impact of judicial review in the highly contentious area of rights disagreements. Evidence from the US context, which has a much longer empirical track record with the judicial review of laws for compliance with constitutional rights, supports this claim.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| 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 it