MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521584503 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1132

Reflecting on a Legacy

2008· article· en· W1521584503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawCharterAppealPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bertha Wilson’s journey was storied, if unlikely in certain ways. She was the Scottish minister’s wife who immigrated to Canada and many years later became the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. She arrived at the Court momentously, in time to witness the historic repatriation of Canada’s Constitution and enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bertha Wilson was not impelled to law school in the 1950s by focus or ambition, nor did she aspire to the judiciary. She did not seek out the powers and responsibilities of judicial office, but was chosen for public service. Yet if she found judicial decision-making lonely, it was also a source of immense fulfillment for her: first at the Ontario Court of Appeal and then at the Supreme Court of Canada, where she was, truly and quintessentially, a “faithful steward of the law”. Bertha Wilson reported being daunted — and humbled — by the hopes and expectations that were prompted by her judicial appointments, and she spoke, too, of the apprehension she and others felt at being called upon to interpret the Charter. If Justice Wilson was intimidated by the challenges she faced at the Supreme Court of Canada, there is little

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207