Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professor Elliot was invited to participate in a panel [hosted in 2003 at the the Canaidan Institute for the Administration of Justice conference] because of a concern on the part of the conference organizers that, since there are obviously two sides to the dispute between a number of major Canadian and foreign companies engaged in the manufacture of tobacco products and the Government of British Columbia about the constitutionality of British Columbia’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30 it would be better for you to hear from representatives of both sides rather than just one. Ross Clark, counsel for one of the foreign companies, Philip Morris Inc., has succinctly summarized the position taken by his client on the issue with which it has been primarily concerned, which is whether the Act should be struck down because it offends the rule of law. [See D.R. CLARK, “British Columbia Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law” in in Hughes & Molinari, eds., Participatory Justice in a Global Economy: The New Rule of Law (2004). Professor Elliot was involved on the Government’s side of this dispute for a number of years - in fact since the enactment of the current Act’s predecessor in 1997. He can therefore appropriately be viewed as the representative of that side. In that capacity, he attempts to summarize equally succinctly the position the Government has taken in response to Philip Morris’ submissions on that issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".