MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288463069

Developments in Constitutional Law: The 2011-2012 Term

2012· article· en· W2288463069 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa MacDonnell

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtPolitical scienceLawJurisprudenceCharterPlaintiffCommissionContext (archaeology)Geography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence from the past year. During the 2011-2012 term, the Supreme Court of Canada issued two Charter decisions outside the criminal procedure context, Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society (“Insite”) and S.L. v Commission scolaire des Chenes. A third decision, Dore v Barreau du Quebec, dealt with issues arising from the intersection of administrative and constitutional law. The Court also heard four cases raising division of powers issues: Insite, Reference re Securities Act (the “Securities Reference”), Quebec (Attorney General) v Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), and Tessier Ltee v Quebec (Commission de la sante et de la securite du travail). It is difficult to suggest with confidence that any significant trends emerge from the decisions issued during the 2011-2012 term. It is perhaps more helpful to situate each of the cases within the broader trajectories of the jurisprudence. At the very least, however, it is possible to identify certain tendencies or issues that appear to be preoccupying the Court. These include the issue of the claimant’s evidentiary burden in Charter cases; cooperative federalism; and a concern that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity remain confined.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.018
Scholarly communication0.0200.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0100.013
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207