Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Frank Iacobucci and the University of Toronto† Martin L. Friedland (bio) My essay is about one of Frank Iacobucci's great passions, the University of Toronto, where he spent almost twenty years of his life. Frank had a high regard for universities. The first sentence in the introduction to the 2005 book Taking Public Universities Seriously, which he edited with Carolyn Tuohy, reads, 'Public universities are central pillars of successful societies.'1 My objective in this brief paper on Frank and the university is to help us gain a better understanding of his character and his approach to problem solving so that we can more easily understand why he was so successful as a judge and continues to be so effective as a problem solver. I know Frank well. I first met him in September 1962 when I was teaching at Osgoode Hall Law School and he was on his way to Cambridge University, where I had spent the year 1960/1961 and to which I would be returning for another nine months in early January 1963. As with almost everyone who has met Frank, there was an instant bond. Our friendship has lasted almost forty-five years. During that time I have never heard anyone say a harsh word about him. As fellow Canadians doing graduate work in law at Cambridge – I think we were the only two doing so in 1963 – we cemented the friendship. I became aware of Frank's fine sense of humour and his laughter, which is also part of the reason for his success. I remember one incident – I can't remember whether I was actually there or whether Frank told me about it – when he and a philosopher friend of ours were in one of the Great Courts of St. John's College. Our friend had said something funny to Frank, who had doubled over in laughter and was rolling on the grass. The hall porter came over to our philosopher friend and asked what [End Page 155] was happening. The reply was, 'He just got some bad news – but he's taking it well.' Frank's humour was well known at the law school. You could always count on Frank to break the tension – or boredom – at a faculty council meeting by saying something clever and humorous. Sometimes it was straight slapstick. Frank always got a laugh at marks meetings, when we came to the student who had been given the pseudonym 'Duck,' by ducking under the table. I doubt if he resorted to slapstick or rolled on the floor in conference at the Supreme Court, but I can picture him switching to his Groucho Marx or W.C. Fields voice when the situation needed such an intervention. Frank went to Cambridge on a Newton Rowell Fellowship – the very Rowell of the law school's Rowell Room. Rowell had been the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario. In his second year at Cambridge, Frank had the Mackenzie King Travelling Scholarship. I doubt if Brian Mulroney knew of this early identification with the Liberal Party when he appointed Frank Chief Justice of the Federal Court. His work at Cambridge was in international law, with a particular interest in disarmament, which again was useful in his later negotiations with the faculty association. Disarming the opposition has been one of his strengths. Cambridge is also the place where Frank met his lifelong partner, Nancy Eastham, who came from a well-established New England family. Like her father, Nancy had been at Harvard Law School, where she was one of the editors of the Harvard Law Review. My wife, Judy, became friends with Nancy. We attended Frank and Nancy's wedding in Andover, Massachusetts, in October 1964, trying to do our bit to counterbalance the profusion of Bostonians. After Cambridge, Frank and Nancy went to New York, where Frank was an associate of Dewey, Ballantine. I seem to recall that Frank has a funny story about meeting or not meeting Governor Dewey. Sometime in early 1967, Peter Williamson, who taught corporate and securities law, decided to leave the University of Toronto Law School to return to the Dartmouth business school. The law school therefore needed...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,045 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».