MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184492925 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1283

Research Note: All But One: Solo Dissents on the Modern Supreme Court of Canada

2006· article· en· W2184492925 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christine Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissentSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceMajority opinionTypologySociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It can be argued that the exercise of solo dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada is judicial disagreement at its apex-a single judge sitting on the highest court in the nation breaking away from his or her colleagues who have purportedly "gotten it wrong." By examining the practice of solo dissent in the Supreme Court of Canada over the last three decades, this research note provides insight into this unique form of judicial disagreement. Through construction of a typology of solo dissents, and by providing answers to important questions, such as how often judges render solo dissents and whether some judges are more likely to dissent on their own, this note unveils some of the mystery behind decisions of the court embodying "all but one."

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.971
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 studies0.0030.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207