MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W22278256 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1499

The Dissenting Opinion: Voice of the Future?

2000· article· en· W22278256 on OpenAlex
Claire L’Heureux-Dubé

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissenting opinionUnanimityDissentLegitimacyLawPolitical scienceJudicial opinionEconomic JusticeIndependence (probability theory)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dubé explores the history and the role of dissenting opinions in Canadian law. She argues that dissents contribute to the development of the law through their prophetic potential. Dissents are also fundamental elements of judicial discourse, serving to safeguard the integrity of the decisionmaking process and judicial independence. The Canadian legal tradition, like its American counterpart, provides numerous examples of why, in 1951, future Chief Justice Bora Laskin praised the "precious right" to dissent. Unanimity is not indispensable for judicial legitimacy or legal stability. In fact, the presence of judicious dissents can portray the true complexity of legal reasoning more accurately, while offering new possibilities for the law's evolution to judges, lawyers, and the 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0060.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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