MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529794700

A Practical Guide to Appellate Judging

2015· article· en· W2529794700 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Appellate Practice and Process · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealLawTrial courtPolitical scienceSupreme courtLaw of the caseEconomic JusticeCourt of recordRemand (court procedure)SociologyOriginal jurisdiction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION This article is designed primarily for two groups of people: lawyers or trial judges who are wondering whether to become appellate judges, and people who have recently become appellate judges. But observers of appeal courts may also enjoy a peek behind the curtain. I write this after twenty-seven years as a justice on three Canadian Courts of Appeal. (1) I have done three studies about how appellate courts and judges do and should operate in the United States and Canada. Two studies were for the Canadian Judicial Council. Some very able and very busy American federal and state appeal courts gave me an intimate view of themselves hard at work; I also have had some part in training new appellate judges. (2) I keep reading the reforms made by the two top English appeal courts. All that has shown the progress, development, and range of good ways to run an appeal court. The most helpful approach to summarizing appellate work is to describe the work of an individual judge on an appeal court, so I will do that here. I will emphasize problems and the most effective personal methods to solve them. II. WHAT APPELLATE WORK IS A. In General A late colleague used to say of an appellate judge's lot that it's all indoor work and no heavy lifting. Readers probably guessed that already. But some appellate judges do have to travel (especially in the federal courts of appeals in the United States). And the volume of paper at times does literally involve heavy lifting. (3) In practice and in principle, an appeal court daily both corrects error and makes law. It also plays variations on those themes, such as clarifying or reasserting law, or promoting uniformity of results. One chief justice used to say that when he was a trial judge, he had been engaged in a search for truth, but when he went on the appeal court, he switched to searching for error. What about a typical state with two appellate courts, a supreme court which is supposed to make law, and an intermediate appeal court which is supposed to correct error? Even then, the two tasks overlap. Of necessity, each court does some of both. But there can be trouble when either type of appeal court fails to maintain a proper balance between the two different functions. What is the aim of appellate work? A judge on a trial court can often do much to produce or aid justice in individual cases, especially when no jury is involved. But on an appellate court, that is often harder to achieve legitimately and safely. The facts are usually fixed. An appellate judge may be tempted to tweak the law, to favor a party for whom justice in that case is just out of reach. But sad experience shows that in the long run, the effect of following that impulse often produces injustice for many future litigants. That long-lasting evil comes from a past effort to help one now-forgotten individual in his or her suit or prosecution. Hard cases indeed make bad law. (4) Sometimes sympathetic appellate judges do more harm than unsympathetic ones. Someone who wants to become an appellate judge should think about that. And someone who is already an appellate judge should never forget it. B. In the Trenches 1. Reading Appellate work is usually intensely oriented to paper and reading, and produces much less oral interaction than does trial work. That is especially true of those appeal courts which deny oral argument for most cases, those which impose extremely short time limits for oral argument, and those which draw panels from judges who live in different cities. However it comes about, the orientation to paper shapes the judges' task several ways. The first effect is vital, to the surprise of a new appellate judge. Any appellate judge must be good at decisionmaking, paper handling, and time management. Even the onrush of paper (or emails) is considerable. If it backs up, it will flood the judge and his or her colleagues. …

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.370 · 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