Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Any discussion of judicial ethics and accountability -- whether it is at the state, national, or international level-inevitably requires engagement with two key ideals: impartiality and independence. Ideals are important because they can provide a trajectory for human action. But ideals can also be a problem because their generality and abstraction can cause one to prevaricate -- or even pontificate -- when it comes to the immediate and the pragmatic Indeed, there are times when ideals such as impartiality and independence can become false gods insofar as they promise salvation but ultimately, deliver little. Consequently, when one is asked to consider concrete questions of judicial ethics and accountability, such as those identified by the coordinators of this Symposium, too great a focus on a philosophical inquiry into the essence of impartiality and independence may not take one very far. Rather, as I have argued elsewhere, a more productive (if iconoclastic) approach to answering such questions may be to seek to assist judges to minimize their own partiality.\nThis short Article approaches the foregoing questions with a discussion of the state and status of judicial ethics in Canada. While popular mythology tends to portray Canadians as relatively laid-back, pragmatic people, this essay contends that Canadians have, in actuality, made some quiet and careful progress on the subject of judicial ethics and accountability that can provide valuable insight for further improvement in those areas. Moreover, this Article suggests that the methodology underlying Canada's progress does, in fact, embrace the pragmatic task of minimizing partiality in as much as it aspires to achieve maximum impartiality. To support these claims, this Article will proceed in four stages. First, it will lay a foundation for the rest of the discussion by explaining how the very idea of judicial ethics as an object of analysis and contestation is of relatively recent vintage in Canada. Second, it will identify several institutional initiatives that have enhanced the profile of judicial ethics in Canada. Third, it will suggest ways in which the judicial ethics project in Canada (but also perhaps in the United States) can be re-imagined, expanded, and even reconstructed by paying greater attention to the concept of an ethical identity. Fourth and finally, this Article will conclude by linking some more general observations back to the questions posed by the Symposium coordinators.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».