Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this lecture, Professor Arthurs argues that we are currently in need of "constitutional courage"-the courage to say "no" to ambitious projects of constitutional reform and constitutional litigation as a way to solve our pressing social and political problems. Professor Arthurs first lays out why our current obsession with the constitution is problematic. He insists that we do not even know what the supposed "supreme law of Canada" actually is, what it says, or even what it does. Moreover, instead of transforming society, the current "cult of constitutionalism" has only served to transform legal practice and scholarship. ei then surmises on the potential causes of our constitutionalism: the preponderant influence of American political and legal culture in Canada; the patchy and uncertain nature of our own constitution; frustration with parliamentary politics; the neo-liberal agenda; and perhaps even postrWodemisn. Lastly, he examines the role constitutionalism has played in the expansion of the judiciary power. Professor Arthurs concludes that it is time we said "no" to the constitution. Only by summoning up our constitutional courage will we be able to turn away from the distractions of constitutionalism and toward the more pressing and practical problems of the day.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".