Federal loyalty in Canadian law: mitigating intergovernmental conflict during the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergovernmental conflicts in Canada have intensified over the construction of new interprovincial pipelines designed to transport the country’s abundant oil and gas reserves to consumer markets. This thesis examines the intricate intergovernmental interactions at the policy, governance, constitutional, and regulatory levels in the pipeline context, using the Trans Mountain Expansion Project as a case study. It seeks to mitigate opposition between governments by proposing that courts be equipped with additional constitutional tools to promote cooperative behaviour. Specifically, this thesis advocates for incorporating a principle of federal loyalty into Canadian constitutional law. This principle could offer a normative foundation for the Supreme Court’s recent support of cooperative federalism by establishing rules to manage conflicts arising from intergovernmental collaboration. It would require federal partners to consult and cooperate with each other when exercising their otherwise legitimate powers to prevent harming or generating negative externalities for the other partners
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".