MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089150328 · doi:10.1080/03050710902726931

Provincial law reform agencies in Canada: are they really that different from the Scottish Law Commission?

2009· article· en· W2089150328 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth Law Bulletin · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionLawMandatePolitical scienceLaw reformWork (physics)Agency (philosophy)Public administrationState (computer science)SociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an overview on the structure and guiding principles of the new Law Commission of Ontario and considers the present state of law reform at the provincial level. The author suggests that the establishment of the Ontario agency continues a trend that started about a decade ago with provincial governments reversing earlier decisions to either close down or cut funding to agencies. 1 1 Gavin Murphy, ‘The Rise, Decline and Current Status of Canada’s Law Reform Agencies’ (2004) 30 CLB 900. He indicates that the launch of the Law Commission of Ontario is a positive development and could signal further interest and renewed support for provincial law reform in Canada. The article also examines the history, mandate and work of the Scottish Law Commission and concludes that the challenges it faces are similar to those confronting Canada’s provincial law reform agencies.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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