Review Essay of Judicial Power and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism, 2d ed. by Christopher J. Manfredi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is in the midst of a national debate over judicial activism under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, the discourse of activism has been taken up by the right. There is a litany of charges here—that under the cloak of judicial review, the Supreme Court of Canada is foisting a particular political agenda upon the Canadian public, a mixture of gay rights and feminism. For students of comparative constitutionalism, the rise of the right-wing critique of Charter adjudication is instructive. Just as the Charter has shaped the drafting of bills of rights in several jurisdictions, so too can the Canadian experience provide important lessons on the politics of judicial review that will likely emerge in those jurisdictions as well. The second edition of McGill University political scientist Christopher Manfredi’s Judicial Power and the Charter is therefore worth reading, not only for its discussion of Canadian developments, but also for the light it sheds on the comparative politics of judicial review.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".