MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1873709627 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1016

The Myths of Judicial Activism

2001· article· en· W1873709627 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudicial activismCharterPolitical scienceLawSupreme courtJudicial reviewJudicial independenceConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1 Canadians have played out an American-style debate about judicial activism at an accelerated pace.Throughout the 1980s, a number of commentators on the left expressed concerns that the Court was interpreting the Charter in a manner that would thwart legislative attempts to assist the disadvantaged and strike down progressive social legislation as occurred in the United States in the Lochner era. 2 During the next decade, commentators on the right duplicated American criticisms of the Warren Court by arguing that the Supreme Court was exercising too much power by inventing rights not found in the Constitution, and by enforcing the rights of minorities and criminals against the wishes of the majority and their elected representatives.3 These later concerns

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.087
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207