MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796203741

Canada Update: A Case Involving Limitations on Free Speech; the Articling Problem and Proposed Solution; A Summary of Legislative and Upcoming Regulatory Changes: Hydrofracking, Wiretapping, and Self-Defense

2013· article· en· W2796203741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Paulson

Bibliographic record

VenueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureFree speechSelf defenseLaw and economicsPolitical scienceLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THIS article begins with a brief summary and analysis of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.The case involved the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting hate speech.Next, this article takes a look at an increasing problem that recent law graduates face: securing an articling position.Then, three recently proposed changes to legislation and regulation are given a brief overview. I.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.224
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

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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University)Same topicLaw, Rights, and FreedomsFrench-language works237,207