Going global? Canada as importer and exporter of constitutional thought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter I assess the transformation of Canada’s stature as “giver” and as “taker” of constitutional thought. With respect to the former aspect, Canada has become a global powerhouse and a household name in comparative constitutional law. This is reflected, inter alia, in patterns of foreign reference to Canadian sources and by the extensive engagement with Canadian constitutional ideas by scholars and policy-makers overseas. In the chapter’s first part, I examine the main reasons for this stunning transformation. To a lesser degree, the cosmopolitan trend is also reflected in patterns of engagement with comparative constitutional materials in Canada. In that respect, in addition to the formal one, the Canadian constitution has indeed been repatriated. I conclude in the third part by suggesting that while the contemporary Canadian constitutional sphere is engaging with comparative constitutional thought in the area of rights and liberties, the comparative turn has not, by and large, penetrated the discourse concerning some of Canada’s structural or organic constitutional failings. In that sense, the promise of comparative constitutional inquiry has largely fallen short of making a meaningful contribution to the advancement of a sophisticated, well-informed discourse about constitutional renewal in early 21st century 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 0.015 |
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".