MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258436064 · doi:10.3138/utlj.3244

Polycentricity and queue jumping in public law remedies: A two-track response

2015· article· en· W2258436064 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycentricityContext (archaeology)JurisdictionAdjudicationLawPolitical scienceSociologyNegotiationLegislatureLaw and economicsInterpretation (philosophy)EconomicsCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines complex public law remedies in light of Lon Fuller’s famous critique that courts are ill-equipped to deal with polycentric or multifaceted issues and the related critique that remedies for health care and other socio-economic rights result in queue jumping. Most contemporary commentators interpret Fuller as hostile to courts’ ordering complex remedies. A more nuanced interpretation of Fuller advanced in part ii of this article suggests that polycentricity is a matter of degree and that courts can cautiously engage with polycentric issues by relying on negotiation among parties and drawing dialogically on the expertise of the legislature and the executive. At the same time, many commentators subsequent to Fuller have unwisely dismissed his concern about maintaining the integrity of adjudication by ensuring that successful litigants receive a tangible remedy. Part iii will examine the American experience with complex remedies, suggesting that a recent California prison case illustrates some dangers of courts losing adjudicative focus when they take on too many polycentric problems. Part iv will suggest that, while Doucet-Boudreau and section 24(1) of the Charter should allow Canadian courts carefully to manage polycentric tasks by retaining jurisdiction, there have been some regrettable retreats from the majority’s decision. Nevertheless, a new remedy of a ‘declaration plus’ will be defended as appropriate in prison and other complex cases. Part v will examine remedies in the polycentric context of health care. It will suggest that suspended declarations of invalidity such as was used in Chaoulli can also help manage polycentricity. The two-track approach to remedies defended in the part vi would involve courts where possible, providing individual remedies to litigants while using more cautious dialogic remedies to address complex polycentric issues such as unconstitutional health care and prison conditions.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.036
Scholarly communication0.0130.021
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0270.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207