MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W26441566

Public interest, Torstar and the Lange Cases

2010· article· en· W26441566 on OpenAlex
U. Cheer

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

VenueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw and Political Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I want to discuss the very recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Torstar case. The New Zealand leading case in this area, the Lange case, was significantly influenced by the Canadian Charter and by the contemporaneous development of human rights jurisprudence in a number of jurisdictions. Now it seems the New Zealand jurisprudence has played a significant part in this recent development of Canadian defamation law. This important decision has opened up the law of defamation for media in Canada. It also demonstrates nicely how common law systems of law are part of a robust process of fertilisation and cross-fertilisation of ideas, analysis and experience. The Supreme Court used a comparative analysis to reach its decision, by looking at developments elsewhere, including New Zealand. And in turn, this decision could influence where our law goes in the future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.196 · 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