MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292255313

Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney-General) - Is Starvation Illegal?: The Enforceability of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living

2003· article· en· W2292255313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Matas

Bibliographic record

VenueMelbourne journal of international law · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawAppealCharterPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A brief note on the scenario that set the backdrop for the dispute in Gosselin v Qu bec (Attorney-General) is provided followed by a discussion about adaptability of The Canadian Charter which is the supreme law of Canada is presented. An overview of the case in lower courts, and arguments presented in the Supreme court, are detailed and it is concluded that although Louise Gosselin lost her appeal in the Supreme Court, economic, social and cultural rights won.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMelbourne journal of international lawSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207