MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1761713647

Custody, Control, and Confusion: Legal, Historical, and Territorial Aspects of Court Records in Ontario

2010· article· en· W1761713647 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tom Belton

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocale (computer software)LegislationLawPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)ConfusionTribunalJurisdictionHumanitiesEthnologyHistoryArchaeologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce texte analyse l'volution des tribunaux suprieurs et correctionnels de l'Ontario ainsi que de leurs documents d'archives, dans leur contexte lgislatif d'hier aujourd'hui.Il examine l'ambigut, la complexit, voire mme la confusion totale qui entourent la garde, le contrle et la conservation des documents d'archives des tribunaux.Il donne un bref exemple de la disposition des documents d'archives d'un tribunal correctionnel en Ontario -celui du comt de Middlesex -pendant la priode de transition d'une autorit locale une autorit centrale la fin des annes 1960 et au dbut des annes 1970.Le texte conclut que le contrle judiciaire des documents des tribunaux demeure un concept lgal bien tabli en Ontario comme ailleurs, bien qu'on assiste au renforcement du contrle provincial qui, aprs quarante ans de centralisa tion tant de l'administration judiciaire que de la gestion des documents, remplace l'en gagement local.Cette situation s'est produite malgr l'absence continue de rfrences aux documents des tribunaux dans la lgislation ontarienne, qui devrait tre corrige selon les modles d'autres provinces comme le Manitoba et le Saskatchewan.ABSTRACT This paper explores the evolution of Ontario's superior and county courts and their records in their legislative context up to the present.It examines issues of ambiguity, complexity, and outright confusion that have surrounded the custody, control, and preservation of court records.It provides a short example of the disposition of the records of one county court in Ontario -the County of Middlesex -during a time of transition from local to central authority in the late 1960s and early 1970s.The paper concludes that judicial control of court records remains a firmly entrenched legal concept in Ontario as elsewhere, albeit alongside a strengthening provincial custodial role that has supplanted local involvement due to forty years of centralization in courts administration and records management.This has occurred despite the continued absence of references to court records in current Ontario legis lation, which should be corrected based on models from other provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207