MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161795237 · doi:10.82308/2769

The stories we tell: the supreme court of Canada and the constitution

2017· dissertation· en· W7161795237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katharine Glover

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtConstitutionalismConstitutionConstitutional theoryConstitutional lawShadow (psychology)Constitutional rightJurisprudencePrecedentState supreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation is a study of the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitution. At its heart is a dissatisfaction with the assumptions about the constitution that underlie existing accounts of the Court. These assumptions fail to adequately capture structural and lived realities of Canadian constitutionalism. As a consequence, our understandings of the Supreme Court's role and significance in the constitutional life of the country are tidy, but incomplete in meaningful - indeed harmful - ways. To overcome these shortcomings, this dissertation offers a new account of the Court in Canada's constitutional order. This new account begins by disrupting the assumptions that underlie the existing narratives. Two reorientations are central. First, the analysis in this dissertation attends to structural dimensions of the constitution, which have been in the shadow of rights-based constitutionalism since patriation. Second, the analysis draws on the insights of legal pluralism, which helpfully inform much constitutional knowledge in Canada but have not been adequately accounted for in understandings of the Supreme Court. This reorientation reveals matters that play a significant role in the Court's institutional life but have been overlooked and undervalued in the existing accounts. In particular, these matters include the horizontal and shifting institutional framework within which the Court operates, the agonistic dimensions of constitutional disputes, and the multijural character of constitutionalism in Canada. Relying on a structural reading of the constitution, this dissertation tells a different story about the Supreme Court in Canada's legal order. It first considers the present, urging a shift in expectations, attitudes, and practices in relation to the Court. It then imagines the future, arguing for an approach to Court reform that is sensitive to the aspirations of institutional design, and the possibilities and limits of constitutional amendment in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0450.038
Scholarly communication0.0210.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicJudicial and Constitutional Studies→French-language works237,207→