MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159087817

A Corner Turned: Supreme Court of Canada Decisions of the Year Past

2006· article· en· W2159087817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Q.C. Charlotte A. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawAssertionNova scotiaHeading (navigation)Political scienceHigh CourtArticulation (sociology)SociologyEngineeringEthnology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This year, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down two significant decisions, R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard (and its Nova Scotia counterpart, R. v. Stephen Marshall), and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage). Superficially read, these cases seem to represent a complete turnabout — in one case the Court adopts a very restrictive posture towards the protection of Aboriginal rights, and in the next, seems to adopt the opposite. Upon a more thoughtful read, when taken together, the cases suggest a more cohesive approach, and indicate where the Supreme Court is heading in the area of assertion and protection of Aboriginal rights. The purpose of this paper is to examine the two cases with a view to extracting their themes, and then joining these themes together in the articulation of a cohesive theory that will reveal the direction the Court will likely go in future Aboriginal rights cases. The paper will start with a brief review of the facts, findings of law, and conclusion as to the underlying approach of each case seriatum. It will conclude by comparing each of these seemingly inconsistent

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases ConferenceSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207