Le verdissement de l’article 7 de la Charte canadienne à l’aune du développement des litiges climatiques canadiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement des litiges climatiques fondés sur des arguments de droit fondamentaux au Canada questionne l’adaptabilité du droit constitutionnel à un nouveau contexte social et environnemental. En l’absence de droit environnemental à statut constitutionnel, le débat porte notamment sur l’interprétation du droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité limité par les principes de justice fondamentaux (article 7 de la Charte canadienne) à la lumière du changement climatique. Cette interprétation est désignée comme le « verdissement » de l’article 7. Ce travail examine l’appréhension des arguments soulevant un tel verdissement pour mettre en cause des actions ou inactions gouvernementales, comme des dispositions législatives, par les tribunaux canadiens au prisme de litiges climatiques en cours. Il s’agit donc d’examiner la manière dont les cours ont considéré ces moyens nouveaux comportant des composantes politiques tout tentant de maintenir leur légitimité.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".