MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165821138 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1164

Appealing Outcomes: A Study for the Overturn Rate of Canada's Appellate Courts

2009· article· en· W165821138 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael H. Lubetsky, Joshua A. Krane

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealSupreme courtPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary discusses the rate at which Canada's appellate courts are overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. By deconstructing the overturn rate, the authors identify and compare various factors that affect the rate at which appeals are pursued, considered, and allowed. The data reveal that decisions from the British Columbia, Quebec, and Newfoundland & Labrador courts of appeal are overturned more often than those from their counterparts. Conversely, the Ontario and Saskatchewan courts of appeal exhibit overturn rates below the national average. The analysis suggests that the underlying drivers giving rise to the unusually high or low overturn rates, however, differ from province to province, and this provides possible avenues for further investigation.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207