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 OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Claire L’Heureux-Dubé

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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 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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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