Jamais deux sans trois...Once Commission, Twice Reform, Thrice Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision of the Government of Canada in the fall of 2006 to terminate funding of the Law Commission of Canada was of a piece with the earlier decision of the government of Canada in 1993 to close the former Law Reform Commission of Canada. Unsurprisingly, the creation of the Law Commission of Canada was justified by the same general arguments as those that were invoked when the Law Reform Commission was established. The closure in 1993 occurred after the LRCC had more or less abandoned its original mandate and had taken on a role more in keeping with that typically performed by provincial law reform agencies. That of 2006, by contrast, was undertaken precisely because the LCC did not abandon its statutory mandate. This note explores the conceptions of law, of reform, and of commissions (institutional structure) through which public engagement with, and public participation in reimagining law have been pursued at the federal level. Rather than a lamentation for either the LRCC or the LCC it offers an optimistic assessment of the policy choices that a wise Parliament might well take up in its next iteration of the law reform idea.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".