MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886525649 · doi:10.29173/alr1433

The Gifted Judge: An Analysis of the Judicial Career of Robert H. Jackson

2000· article· en· W2886525649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Graeme A. Barry

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawEconomic JusticePolitical scienceCivil libertiesJudicial reviewJudicial activismDoctrineDemocracySociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author undertakes an historical analysis of the judicial achievements of Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1941 until his sudden death in 1954. Justice Jackson's approach to the nature of the judicial function, to judicial review and to the question of extrajudicial activities sheds light on contemporary debate in these areas. Despite being undoubtedly influenced by his place on the "Roosevelt Court," Jackson was a strong individualist, which the author believes accounts for his "maverick" status on the Court Justice Jackson's prominent judicial opinions relating to economic regulation, procedural due process, civil liberties and the separation of powers doctrine reveal how he addressed the inherent tension between judicial review and democracy in the American system of government. The effects of extrajudicial activities are explored with reference to his key role at the Nuremberg Trials, and the appointment of Madam Justice Louise Arbour to serve as Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals.

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)0.014
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207