Contributions civilistes à l’interprétation des lois constitutionnelles canadiennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the interpretation of Canadian constitutional laws has long been carried by a teleological wave, a textualist backlash has emerged in recent years. This article questions this trend and argues that the teleological method remains the most appropriate for constitutional interpretation. To support this argument, the article first draws a parallel between Canadian constitutional laws and civil codes, primarily the Civil Code of Québec (the “Code”). These instruments share certain fundamental characteristics—namely, their constitutive role, their aspiration for unity and durability, as well as their often general and abstract drafting style. It is well established that these characteristics require civilian interpreters to adopt a flexible and evolving method that emphasizes the purposes and spirit of the Code beyond its text. The presence of these same characteristics in Canadian constitutional laws justifies the application of the same interpretative method, which reinforces the teleological approach and thereby rules out any textualist inclination. The article then responds to some objections—namely, the idea that the entrenchment of constitutional laws justifies the use of a more textual method of interpretation. It further suggests that this particularity, far from hindering the application of the civilian method, provides an additional argument in its favour. Finally, it argues that the pan-Canadian reach of our constitution requires that the approaches developed in Quebec be taken into serious consideration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".