R. v. Conway: UnChartered Territory for Administrative Tribunals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In R. v. Conway, the Supreme Court of Canada reformulated and simplified the test for when an administrative tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of considering constitutional questions and ordering Charter remedies. Previously, there were two different tests for when a tribunal was a court of competent jurisdiction: one for when an administrative tribunal was considering whether a legislative provision was constitutional, and a second when it was considering whether it had jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy. Conway amalgamated and simplified the tests. In so doing, the Supreme Court made clear that administrative tribunals should play a primary role in determining Charter issues and that the fundamental issue is whether a tribunal can consider questions of law. It is possible, under Conway, that many more tribunals will be considered courts of competent jurisdiction. However, as the powers of tribunals are constrained by the legislative scheme, in practice the change may not be as significant as initially thought.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".