Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remedies often seem to receive less attention than they deserve. The title of this collection of essays, as well as the annual conference of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice that led to this book, is borrowed from Professor Ronald Dworkin’s justly famous book Taking Rights Seriously. We hope that this collection of essays will inspire litigators, judges, administrative tribunal members and academics to spend more time thinking and writing about remedies.The CIAJ was especially fortunate that Chief Justice McLachlin agreed to deliver the keynote address at the conference. Her essay, included at the start of the book, provides a sage assessment of the practical nature of remedies. The Chief Justice reminds us that remedies are vitally important to ordinary people seeking justice before the courts and that all of us involved in the law neglect remedies at our peril. She also observes that the subject of remedies is an important but often under-explored area for academic study. Chief Justice McLachlin’s view of remedies as being interwoven with rights in a single fabric we call “justice” provides us with an appropriately lofty theme for this book.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".