The Gift of Enron: An Opportunity to Talk About Capitalism, Equality and the Promise of a North American Charter of Fundamental Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Article, Enron is positioned as a promising opening in the debate about economic globalization and the regulation of advanced capitalism in North America. As a contribution to that debate, the author suggests that there are two aspects of advanced capitalism which call for supranational response and regulation. First, advanced capitalism is increasingly transnational (as distinct from international and intranational). This brings unique regulatory challenges to the fore. Second the regulation of advanced capitalism can be usefully understood as a substantive equality issue (as that concept in understood in Canadian law). In the past, this aspect of capitalism-thef act that it raises substantive equality issues-could be largely dealt with within the borders of the nation-state. But the transnationalization of capitalism makes this increasingly difficult, at the same time that it brings new equality issues to the table. In these circumstances, this Article suggests that a North American Charter of Fundamental Rights might be one answer, or one part of a larger answer. A supranational Charter of Fundamental Rights holds enormous potential for reasserting government sovereignty over corporate sovereignty, protecting already achieved national rights, introducing and enhancing new rights, shaping the debate about corporate reform, giving us (enforceable) minimum standards, and-perhaps most importantly-providing an opportunity to develop a coherent vision for shaping and managing our evolving North American community under NAFTA and the WTO. In exploring the scope and utility of a supranational Charter, core concepts are explored and predictable objections are canvassed The author concludes that we should begin the complex discussions about a North American Charter, even if ratification proves impossible or inadvisable.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".