MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582707181 · doi:10.1093/ojlr/rww080

The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v Trinity Western University

2016· article· en· W2582707181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barry W. Bussey

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Journal of Law and Religion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtNova scotiaUltra viresConstitutionPolitical scienceCharterStatutory lawHuman rightsConstitutional courtConstitutional lawSociologyDoctrine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Administrative law – Vires of regulations – Standard of review – Constitutional and statutory law – Human rights – Freedom of conscience and religion – Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) approving proposed law school at Trinity Western University (TWU) even in light of Community Covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside marriage between a man and a woman – Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (NSBS) regulations providing only for adoption of FLSC’s sanctioned law degree – NSBS amending regulations to permit its discretion to act in public interest and determine, notwithstanding FLSC approval, whether TWU unlawfully discriminating in admissions or enrolment policies or requirements on grounds prohibited by Canadian Charter or Nova Scotia Human Rights Act – NSBS passing resolution that law school would not be approved unless TWS excluded law students from the Covenant and restricting ability of TWU law graduates to article in Nova Scotia – TWU seeking judicial review at Nova Scotia Supreme Court – Supreme Court holding amended resolution invalid and quashing NSBS resolution – NSBS appealing the decision – Whether amended regulation ultra vires the Legal Profession Act – Whether resolution unauthorized by Act and its regulations – Whether constitutional issue – The Legal Profession Act, SNS 2004 c 28; Nova Scotia Human Rights Act c 214, RS, 1989, as amended by 1991 c 12; 2007 c 11; 2007 c 14, s 6; 2007 c 41; 2008 c 59; 2012 c 51; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, pt I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being sch B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982 c 11

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Journal of Law and ReligionSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207