Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada on the federal and provincial levels, the Cabinet plays a powerful role as the supreme administrative agency. Unlike its British counterpart, a more conventional body, Canadian cabinets are invested with wide-ranging statutory powers of decision. In this capacity, the Cabinet makes decisions affecting the rights of individuals, groups and corporations. Under the duty to act fairly according to rules developed in British and Canadian caselaw, the Cabinet should, in such circumstances, be required to act quasi judicially. However, as a political entity, the Cabinet can hardly be characterized as a tribunal and the courts hesitate to impose an adversary system upon such an institution. Nevertheless, in several instances, Canadians have had the power to assert that the Cabinet act fairly when dealing with individual rights. The advent of charters of right is another incentive to treat the Cabinet as any agency of the Crown or other public authority bound by the principles of fundamental justice. The authors submit that this legal development may modify cabinets' decision-making powers and make them more open to external representations.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".