Bibliographic record
Abstract
of their time."7 If anything, Justice Rand has retained his image as a courageous judge with deep "moral convictions", 8 willing to bend the law in creative ways to seek justice and protect the rights of oppressed minorities, like the Jehovah Witnesses under Quebec's nationalist and reactionary regime of Maurice Duplessis.9 But Justice Rand's legal philosophy has not faired as well.Over the years, his theory of "implied rights" has received harsh criticism from prominent critics 10 and, in particular, his ideas about the role of the judiciary and rights adjudication have been called "muddled" 11 , "difficult", 12 "contradictory", 13 even "abstruse" 14 .How could this be?How could this "giant of a man intellectually" 15 known for the "brilliance of his record on the Bench" 16 offer such problematic, allegedly mediocre, 17 legal thought?Some explanations --that Justice Rand's personal philosophy was "hopelessly equivocal" 18 or that he tried, without success, to "combine and recite traditional doctrines of liberal thinking" 19 --leave much to be desired.Andrée Lajoie, whose thoughtful account also tried to come to terms with these problems, first put Justice Rand as a proponent of the Harvard school of sociological jurisprudence (advanced by the likes of Roscoe Pound and others in the 1950s), only to accuse Rand of base "social engineering" while decrying the "lack of research" concerning ideas underlying implied rights.207 L. E. Weinrib, "The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of Rights: Constitutional Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Under Canada's Constitution" (2001) 80 Canadian Bar Review 699 at 704. 8 A. Lajoie, "The Implied Bill of Rights, the Charter and the Role of the Judiciary" (1995) 44 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 337 at 341.Though as William Kaplan's recent work has shown, Rand may have been less than heroic in certain aspects of his private life.See generally, William Kalpan, Canadian Maverick: The Life and Times of Ivan C.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".