MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579039961

Unconscious Parallelism: Constitutional Law in Canada and the United States

2005· article· en· W1579039961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John C. Major

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnconscious mindParallelism (grammar)LawPolitical scienceConstitutional lawComputer sciencePsychologyPsychoanalysisParallel computing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As neighbors, Canada and the United States share not only the border but essentially common values and beliefs. As well, the Supreme Court in each country is viewed as the ultimate protector of rights. This paper will outline some of our constitutional differences and use freedom of expression as an example of how we seem to arrive at an arguably satisfactory result by different means. There is a difference of opinion on the application of freedom of expression, yet each country considers it a basic and fundamental right. In part, the variance in approach is directly related to our citizen’s perception of governments. To what extent is the government friend or foe?

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis)Same topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207