Living Dead Constitutionalism or Why Old Constitutional Worlds Are Never Lost for Good: A Comment on Rosalind Dixon’s Responsive Judicial Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review essay reflects on Canadian antecedents and inspirations for Rosalind Dixon’s comparative political process theory. The first section focuses on the articulation of two theories of judicial review under the Charter by Patrick Monahan and Kent Roach that intersect at many points with Dixon’s own account of constitutional review under a written bill of rights. The second section then turns to elements of the Canadian pre-Charter experience that were missed or neglected by those theories and shows why Dixon’s theory nicely captures their internal logic, while the third section returns to the tensions and complexity of Canadian constitutional culture identified by Cairns. Neither solved nor gone, these tensions are revealing of a limitation — or at least an unstated assumption — in most normative theories of judicial review based on deliberative accounts of constitutionalism, including Dixon’s own.
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 | 0.037 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".