La funzione consultiva delle Corti Supreme in prospettiva comparata. La peculiare procedura di reference nell’esperienza canadese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After analyzing the reasons for the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to provide advisory \nopinions, the essay deals with the Canadian reference power, which is quite distinctive when \ncompared to other common law countries. Firstly, it examines the normative framework and \nthe impact of the reference decisions on the Supreme Court caseload and on Canadian constitutional history. Secondly, it offers an overview of the important issues asociated with that \npower, moving from the dangers – due to the lack of a concrete dispute – for the separation \nof powers and the indipendence of the judiciary; and from the weak responses expressly \nprovided from the Supreme Court. Indeed, reference have essentially become “advisory” in \nname only; in practice, the opinions have been regarded as binding and treated like judgements. \nThen, the essay deals with the Supreme Court’s ability to refuse to answer reference \nquestions, in the absence of the statutory authority to do so, thereby creating a “doctrine of \nreference justiciability”; and it also investigates the motivations for a government’s use of the \nreference power and the potential strategic advantages made possible through it. In the last \nparagraph, some conclusions are drawn, in order to get some lessons from the Canadian experience about the opportunity of having a Court, which performs also an advisory function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".