MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

British Justice, English Law, and Canadian Legal Culture

2010· book-chapter· en· W2489353164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawParliamentScots lawEnglish lawPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeLegal cultureCommon lawSources of lawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines British justice, English law, and the Canadian legal culture. It clarifies that there is no such thing as British law and it was English law that was introduced in British North America. This chapter analyses the role of the British Parliament, the House of Lords, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the establishment of the Canadian legal institutions and in the directions taken by Canadian law.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0160.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207