The Challenges of Canadian Constitutionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an interview on Alhayat Television in Egypt on January 30, 2012, United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stirred some controversy in America.She remarked that 'I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.' 1 Where would she look instead?To two countries, she said: Canada and South Africa.Justice Ginsburg's revelation did not come as a surprise to scholars of comparative public law.For years, the United States Constitution has declined in its global influence, due in no small part to its exceptionalism on matters of rights and liberties.2 In its place, Canada has risen to prominence on the strength of its modern Constitution Act, 1982, which after years of failed attempts finally entrenched a domestic amending formula as well as the nowcelebrated Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.3 Admired abroad for its constitutional success, Canada has since become a model for the promise and possibilities of constitutionalism in the democratic and democratizing world.The global importance of the Constitution of Canada has grown as we have approached its sesquicentennial in 2017.Since Confederation began with the British North America Act, 1867, 4 Canada has evolved into a global economic, cultural and now constitutional force.The country has survived the Great Wars, the Great Depression, the internal challenges of regionalism, bilingualism, bijuralism and secession.By its resilient example, the Constitution of Canada has influenced the design of the South African Bill of Rights, the Israeli Basic Laws, the New Zealand Bill of Rights and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.5 The Constitution of Canada
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 | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".