MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512575525

Judicial mediators: are they constitutionally valid?

2006· article· en· W1512575525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Spencer

Bibliographic record

Venuee-publications@bond (Bond University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawJudicial activismJudicial review
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extract: The Attorney-General of Victoria has set the proverbial ‘cat amongst the pigeons’ by suggesting that judicial mediators could be appointed in Victoria sooner rather than later. Judicial mediators have been operating in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario for 10 years or more and mediation has been embraced by the judiciary, more widely under the descriptor ‘judicial dispute resolution’ (JDR), in other provinces of Canada for some time. However their appointment overseas has been the subject of controversy here in Australia, with some commentators believing that the appointment of judicial mediators blurs the line between the role of the courts as being purely for adjudication and the role of mediator as helping parties to seek a consensual solution to their dispute.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-publications@bond (Bond University)Same topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207