MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040148068 · doi:10.5235/1460728x.17.3.437

Equality Rights, Freedom of Religion and the Training of Canadian Lawyers

2014· article· en· W2040148068 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alice Woolley

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Ethics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovenantScope (computer science)LawLegal professionPolitical scienceFreedom of religionLegal ethicsLegal educationSociologyHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should lawyers be trained at law schools that effectively exclude LGBTQ applicants? In Canada prior to 2013, the universally secular and public system of legal education meant this issue never arose. But in 2013 Trinity Western University (TWU), which requires its students to promise to refrain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman,” received approval to open a law school. The Canadian legal profession has divided on the question of whether this requirement ought to preclude TWU graduates from being admitted to the profession. This comment reviews the response of the profession to TWU to date and suggests the significant challenges TWU’s covenant presents for equality rights and religious freedoms, for inter-provincial cooperation in lawyer regulation, and for the proper scope of lawyer regulation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegal EthicsSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207