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 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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".