MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820973665

Judicial Proposal: The Practical Review and System Evolution of Extended Jurisdiction

2015· article· en· W1820973665 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fei Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeJurisdictionIdeal (ethics)LawJudicial reviewReflection (computer programming)Political scienceJudicial discretionAdministrative lawLaw and economicsSociologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The court judicial proposal has been used in the administrative justice practice more and more widely, but there is an obvious gap between the ideal prospect of system construction and the real effect. Based on the summary and analysis of the problems with the operation of the judicial proposal system in the administrative justice, this paper makes a deep reflection and discussion on the system itself, and then puts forward the approaches to promote the judicial proposal system in the administrative justice.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.030
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207