The Canadian Political Science Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By empowering judges to establish national standards, the Charter of Rights limits the capacity of provincial governments to build distinctive communities. But, Samuel LaSelva reminds us, if the Charter is to be the “nation-saving ” device it purports to be, we require a conception of Charter rights that not only acknowledges this will to live together, but recognizes our desire to live apart. Despite this imperative, scant judicial attention has been paid to developing a consistent model of rights in a federal context. Such is not the case in the Council of Europe, where judges have gone to great lengths to articulate a conception of the European Convention on Human Rights that is cognizant of member states ’ desire to maintain distinctive national communities. This recognizes the diverse cultural and legal experiences of the Member States as legitimate justification for the limitation of, or deviation from, otherwise pan-European standards. Despite important parallels with the Canadian context, however, the margin of appreciation has been virtually ignored by Canadian scholars and jurists alike. This paper corrects this oversight, and explores the margin of appreciation in the Canadian context. Following some necessary background on “the margin, ” as well as an exploration of the ultimately misguided application of the principle in Canada to date, it concludes that the margin of appreciation may, with necessary modification, be a particularly appropriate way of thinking about the relationship between federalism and the Charter.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.381 | 0.123 |
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".