MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091278636 · doi:10.7202/042561ar

De la notion de juridiction en droit administratif canadien

2005· article· en· W2091278636 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bernard Amyot

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionTerminologyContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Supreme courtPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Law and economicsLawSociologyPhilosophyPsychologyHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The object of this article considers the ever-evolving concept of jurisdiction in the context of judicial review of administrative action. The author examines recent jurisprudential developments from an historical perspective in an attempt to reveal those factors triggering intervention. The Supreme Court of Canada has often fashioned its tests of jurisdiction to fit the intended results. Hence, over the last decades, jurisdictional terminology has become ripe with deceptive distinctions and attempts to rationalize the various tests have in fact raised most perplexing problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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 droitSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207