MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296558224

Implementation and Reception: The Congeniality of Canada's Legal Order to International Law

2008· article· en· W2296558224 on OpenAlexaffabout
Armand Claude de Mestral, Evan Fox-Decent

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyOrder (exchange)Political scienceLawInterpretation (philosophy)LegislationState (computer science)Judicial interpretationMunicipal lawInternational lawLaw and economicsBusinessEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is generally regarded as a dualist country in that international treaties are understood to have no direct effect unless they are implemented into domestic law through legislation. The authors argue that the courts have adopted an overly restrictive view of implementation, and that on a more generous reading, many treaties ought to be viewed as implemented at the time they are ratified. Further, the authors argue that even if treaties, on any interpretation, are not implemented, the obligations the state incurs by ratifying such treaties ought to be understood by judges and administrative decision-makers alike as having the same status as common law obligations that judges frequently impose on administrative agencies on judicial review, such as the duty of procedural fairness.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0220.027
Scholarly communication0.0240.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207