MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W145886080 · doi:10.29173/alr270

How Goes the Battle? An Exploration of Guardianship Reform

2012· article· en· W145886080 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Doug Surtees

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal guardianLegislationBattleLawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)BusinessHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article attempts to evaluate the success of guardianship law reform in Saskatchewan through a study of 446 guardianship applications made since the 2001 enactment of The Adult Guardianship and Co-decision-making Act. It begins by providing a brief history of guardianship law and details the development of the modern legislation. The author examines granted guardianship orders and surveys participants in the guardianship process in order to determine if the principles underlying the modern legislation have been upheld by the courts.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207