MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563691799 · doi:10.21991/c9ph3g

Constitutional Obligation of Alberta to Publish Laws in French: R v Caron and Boutet

2016· article· en· W2563691799 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Margaret Unsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsObligationPublicationSupreme courtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines the decisions of the Courts in the cases of Gilles Caron and Pierre Boutet [Caron] as well as the basic arguments advanced by the parties at the Supreme Court of Canada. The central issue in the case is whether there is a constitutional obligation on the Province of Alberta to publish its laws in French.This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of the myriad of issues that were argued by Mr. Caron and Mr. Boutet in defence of their traffi c tickets. Rather, the objective is to give an overview of the essentials of each of the decisions and the basic arguments advanced. This paper will also not address the matter of funding at trial, an issue in this case which also went to the Supreme Court of 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207