The Canadian Constitutional Law Open Access Casebook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtually every society around the world has something called a “constitution.” But they differ from one another significantly. Some bind only the government of the country, some bind private actors as well. Some constitutions are written (like those of the United States, France, South Africa and India), some (like that of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel) are unwritten (or “uncodified”) and some (like Canada) are hybrids of the two. Some (like Canada, the United States and South Africa) contain protections for human rights, and some (like Australia) do not.\nAt a basic level, however, the function of a constitution is to define and limit the institutions that govern a society. In terms of limiting governmental power, constitutions define set of fundamental principles by which future governments must abide. Otherwise, the state can operate for the short-term benefit of those in currently in government, to the detriment of those that are not. A corollary of this principle is that constitutions tend to be difficult to amend; often requiring the assent of a “supermajority” (e.g. two thirds or three fourths) of legislators (or legislatures in countries with federal arrangements).
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.008 |
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".