MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173654816 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1033

Fair Hearings in an Ocean Port World - A Textured Concept

2003· article· en· W2173654816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ron Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)Political scienceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RiESUMiCet essai a fait l'objet d'une communication au colloque annuel Toronto Clinics Training Conference, le 7 avril 2003.L'auteur se limite aux << cours des droits >).Il se penche sur les implications de Ocean Port pour l'avenir des tribunaux ind~pendants et impartiaux.II sugg~re, comme point de depart pour d~passer Ocean Port, une comparaison entre les cours des droits et les cours provinciales dans leurs (< versions civiles ,.I1 offre une definition A niveaux multiples d'un o procs dquitable )>.II examine le contenu de la perspective grAce i laquelle les juges administratifs fourniront une 6valuation objective de la loi et de la preuve.L'auteur recommande l'expression de Bertrand Russell, << sympathie hypothdtique )>, pour r6f~rer A la notion d'<( ouverture d'esprit >>.II range lesjuges administratifs ind6pendants et impartiaux du c6t6 de ceux qui s'engagent A aller dans la direction oi une r~elle tentative d'6valuer la loi et l'6vidence les conduirait A juste titre.II 6tablit une liste des structures et des dispositions qui mineraient la confiance en l'ind~pendance et en l'impartialit6 des juges administratifs, et de celles qui accroitraient la confiance en l'ind~pendance et en l'impartialit6 des tribunaux m~mes.II insiste sur l'importance d'une 6valuation 6quitable de la comptence et des qualifications d'un juge administratif.Sur la question de savoir pourquoi la justice administrative s'est d~t6riorde, l'auteur demande : << compar6 A quoi? >>.Il sugg~re qu'un crit~re appropri6 pour caract~riser l'Ontario entre 1985 et 1995 serait la << d~cennie de renaissance ,; il en a pour preuve la grande quantit6 de documents publi~s qui d6crivent le syst~me tel qu'il a dmerg6 durant cette d~cennie.I1 compare les << comp~tences fondamentales >> des juges administratifs de la cour des droits, telles que d~crites par la Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators (SOAR) en 1995, puis par le gouvernement ontarien en 2000; quelle que soit la raison de la d~trioration de lajustice administrative, il sugg~re alors qu'il dtait probablement significatif que le syst~me ontarien ait 6t6 depuis 1995 entre les mains d'un gouvernement dont le Procureur gdn~ral percevait les comp~tences fondamentales de son juge administratif en 2000 comme faisant partie d'un (( ferment pour l'excellence dans l'exercice de la justice administrative en Ontario >>.* Ron Ellis, Q.C., is an experienced administrative law lawyer, academic, adjudicator and administrator, now practising as a labour arbitrator and administrative justice consultant.He has written extensively on administrative justice system issues.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.040
Scholarly communication0.0230.013
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207