MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590093714

Introduction: The McLachlin Court's First Decade - A Dynamic Time for Public Law

2011· article· en· W1590093714 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam M. Dodek, David Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawJurisprudenceSupreme courtEconomic JusticeSociologyHistoryPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the Table of Contents and Introduction for the edited collection of essays on the first decade of Public Law jurisprudence under Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada. Chief Justice McLachlin assumed the chief justice's mantle in January 2000 and has now served in that role for over a decade. In this book, leading Canadian public law scholars reflect upon the court's contributions to various areas of the law. The book includes contributions by David Mullan, Lorne Sossin, Peter Oliver, Nathalie Des Rosiers, Thomson Irvine, Marie-Claire Belleau, Anik Lamontagne, Rebecca Johnson, Susan Gratton, Freya Kristjanson, Constance Macinstosh, Lori Sterling, Peter Landmann, Nathalie Des Rosiers, Daniel Proulx, Thomas Kuttner, Don Stuart and John H. Currie. La plupart des chapitres sont en anglais, mais plusieurs sont en francais. Most of the chapters are in English but several are in French. English chapters have french abstracts and French chapters have English abstracts.The book also includes an address given by Chief Justice McLachlin on the occasion of a conference to mark the 10th anniversary of her chief justiceship held in June 2009 in Ottawa.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.009

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207