MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1984515512 · doi:10.7202/043175ar

Towards an Integrated, Liberal Theory of the Canadian State

2005· article· en· W1984515512 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shannon O'Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)InstitutionPoliticsLaw and economicsPower (physics)Political sciencePerspective (graphical)ConflationPublic sphereLawSociologyPolitical philosophyAction (physics)State actionEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author challenges the tendency in common law Canada to conflate the distinction between State and society. Following the analysis of Kenneth Dyson, the author contends that the State occupies a distinct sphere produced by or contained in the interconstitutive relationship of State institution, on the one hand, and State idea, on the other. The State concept is presented as neither merely active nor merely passive but as involving a relationship between action and reflection, between institution and idea. The author then analyses the broadly shared public values which are contained in the Canadian State idea when viewedfrom a liberal political perspective. That these values incrementally modulate the exercise of public power — and vice versa — argues for a State-society distinction which is not generally emphasized in common law Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.033
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droit→Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies→French-language works237,207→