MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550987653 · doi:10.21991/c95h3t

Judicial Review of Ministerial Advice to the Crown

2016· article· en· W2550987653 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Mark Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAdvice (programming)ConfusionNothingLawAction (physics)Power (physics)Political sciencePoliticsSovereigntyLegal adviceLaw and economicsSociologyPsychologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Thomas Hobbes, nothing illustrated the “inconstant use of words” better than the confusion between “Counsels and Commands,” for the words “Doe this,” he said, “are the words not only of him that Commandeth; but also of him that giveth Counsell.” This confusion remains with us today. We still do not have a sound grasp of the distinctive place that counsel or advice plays within our constitutional system. How is ministerial advice to the sovereign concerning how a power ought to be exercised different from the exercise of the power itself? Does ministerial advice exist within a domain of political action beyond the reach of law? These are persistent questions in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207