MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093414811 · doi:10.7202/042761ar

The Sovereignty of the Judiciary

2005· article· fr· W2093414811 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Terence G. Ison

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterMistakePublic interestSovereigntyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawJudicial reviewParliamentary sovereigntyEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article discute d'abord des problèmes que pose le contrôle judiciaire en général. Il explique pourquoi l'expansion de celui-ci ne peut se justifier pour les raisons habituellement invoquées à cet effet. Depuis l'avènement de la Charte canadienne des droits, ces problèmes se sont accrus. Selon l'auteur, la Charte est une erreur : elle est source de gaspillage et elle menace l'intérêt public sans vraiment protéger les droits de la personne. En même temps, explique l'auteur, nous avons raté une occasion des plus propices d'utiliser les cours de justice de façon conforme à l'intérêt public.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.747
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 studies0.0020.007
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207