MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743531098

Canada, Criminal Appeals and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the 1880s

2001· article· en· W2743531098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqueline D. Krikorian

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d'études constitutionnelles · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPolitical scienceDominionLawCriminal justiceAdministration of justiceHumanitiesJudicial reviewAdministration (probate law)Art
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EnglishIn 1887 and 1888, the government of Canada enacted legislation to abolish criminal appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Exactly why the government took this action has been the subject of limited and somewhat contradictory analysis. An examination of the circumstances leading up to the passage of the legislation reveals that, after a series of problematic criminal cases, the federal government abolished such appeals for pragmatic reasons. A concern about the delay to the administration of justice was by far the most important consideration. Senior officials in both Ottawa and London believed that the enactment was necessary to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice process. Both the Colonial Office and Lord Chancellor’s office accepted and supported the Canadian legislation in principle, although they were uncertain as to whether it accomplished its objective. To avoid the appearance of interfering in the Dominion’s autonomy, they decided not to alert Canadian officials to their concerns about its validity. francaisEn 1887 et 1888, le gouvernement du Canada a adopte une loi visant a abolir les appels en matiere criminelle au Comite judiciaire du Conseil prive. La raison pour laquelle le gouvernement a pris cette mesure a fait l’objet d’une analyse limitee et quelque peu con trad icto ire. L’examen des circonstances qui ont mene a l’adoption de cette loi indique que suite a une serie de causes criminelles a problemes, le gouvernement federal a aboli ces appels pour des raisons pragmatiques. Le retard dans l’administration de la justice representait de loin la consideration la plus importante. Les hauts fonctionnaires, autant a Ottawa, qu’a Londres, estimaient qu’il etait necessaire de promulguer cette loi pour ameliorer l’efficacite de l’administration de la justice penale. L’office des colonies et le bureau du Grand chancelier ont tous deux accepte et appuye en principe la loi canadienne, bien qu’ils n’etaient pas certains que cela permettrait de realiser l’objectif. Afin d’eviter les apparences d’ingerence dans les affaires du Dominion, ils ont decide de ne pas informer les hauts fonctionnaires canadiens de leurs inquietudes quant a la validite de cette loi.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0390.022
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d'études constitutionnellesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207