MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164156301

Alternative Models of Court Administration

2006· article· en· W2164156301 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorne Sossin, Carl Baar, Robert Hann

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudicial independencePolitical scienceJudicial reviewAccountabilityAdministration (probate law)Separation of powersPublic administrationGovernment (linguistics)LawSafeguardingAdministrative lawJudicial activismIndependence (probability theory)BusinessSupreme courtPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Report issued by the Canadian Judicial Council examines and evaluates different Models of Court Administration, i.e.: organizational frameworks which prescribe the way in which decisions would be made that determine court administration policies and operational practices. More specifically, the Report analyses the role of the judiciary in decision-making within such models. The Report is the work of a project begun in 2003 by the Canadian Judicial Council and overseen by a subcommittee of its Administration of Justice Committee. That subcommittee recognized the emergence of a number of critical issues affecting judicial-executive relations: How to avoid inappropriate negotiations between the and judicial branches of government? How to ensure the provision of appropriate support services and facilities for the third branch of government? How to enhance accountability for the use of public monies while safeguarding judicial independence? This Report identifies the standards of administrative control that Courts should exercise in order to ensure the required standard of judicial independence and explores, develops and identifies models of court administration that are alternatives to the existing executive model. The overarching objectives were the preservation of judicial independence and the status of the judiciary as a separate branch of government; the enhancement of public confidence in the judicial system; and the improvement of the quality and delivery of judicial services. In order to determine and elaborate a preferred model for court administration in Canada, this project has collected information from five sources: 1) a detailed review of constitutional considerations; 2) two rounds of over 60 interviews and consultations (each) with Chief Justices and Deputy Ministers and other key participants in court administration from most jurisdictions in Canada, with the first round focusing on the models currently existing in Canada, and the second round of interviews focusing on a range of alternative models; 3) two full day seminars held with the Canadian Judicial Council following each round of interviews at which the issues raised during the consultations were discussed; 4) a review of the range of models used in Courts in other jurisdictions internationally, and; 5) a review of the more general body of knowledge on models of administrative decision making in Courts and in other organizations. Based on the evidence collected and analysis undertaken, this Report finds that there is a compelling constitutional rationale for changing the model of court administration in Canada to a model or models which feature a greater degree of judicial autonomy, and concludes that such change would not only enhance judicial independence and the accountability of the judiciary in court administration, but would also achieve improved effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of services. The Report, finally, analyses available models and recommends one which provides the judiciary with autonomy to manage the core areas of court administration within a set envelope while ensuring (by the carefully considered use of an independent commission) that the authority of the political branches over resource allocation is not used arbitrarily.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207