Application of Non-Implemented International Law\nby the Federal Court of Appeal: Towards a Symbolic\nEffect of s. 3(3)(f) of the IRPA?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1999, the Supreme Court has explored the linkages between domestic statutes and international norms and values and has slowly developed the basic principles underlying a new mechanism of relevancy that the authors call harmonization of domestic law with international law The authors analyze this development in PartI of the present article. In Part II, they study the application of this harmonization mechanism in the field of Canadian immigration law Of, particular importance in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is s. 3(3)(f), for it directs judges to construe and apply the IRPA in a manner that "complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is signatory" They found that instead ofharmonizing the interpretation ofall relevant IRPA provisions with international law, courts are harmonizing the application of the legislation as a whole with international law They conclude that s. 3(3)(f) has been reduced to a merely symbolic value.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".