MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519542469 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1064

Institutional Boundaries and Judicial Review: Some Thoughts on How the Court is Going About Its Business: Desperately Seeking Coherence

2004· article· en· W1519542469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danielle Pinard

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyConfusionConsistency (knowledge bases)AmbivalenceSupreme courtCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Judicial interpretationInterpretation (philosophy)Political sciencePerspective (graphical)LawJudicial activismLaw and economicsJudicial reviewSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the issue of the legitimacy of judicial review from a methodological perspective. It argues that unpredictability of approach is a very serious and dangerous form of judicial activism. It analyses an ambivalent judicial attitude to facts, and the confusion that exists between rules and provisions on the one hand, and interpretation and remedies on the other. It pleads in favour of greater conceptual consistency in the way the Supreme Court of Canada handles methodological issues.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207