Bibliographic record
Abstract
On her appoinbnent to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.See M. Sadava, "Edmonton Inside & Out" The Edmonton Journal (29 December 1999) B2.There are 1,942 judges in Canada.Of these, 1,006 are federally appointed and 936 are appointed by the provinces.I take these figures from Devlin, MacKay & Kim, "Reducing the Democratic Deficit: Representation, Diversity, and the Canadian Judiciary, or Towards a 'Triple P' Judiciary," (2000) 38 Alta.L. Rev. 734 at 760-62.This has not stopped our judges from complaining about overwork.See C. Schmitz, "Judge Complains Court Overloaded as Appoinbnents Lag" The Edmonton Journal (4 April 2000) A6.See T. Morton, "Judging the Judges: Highest-Paid Occupational Group Carves Out For Itself What Amounts to Special Constitutional Powers" The Calgary Herald (6 February 1999) 15; and Statistics Canada, Courts: Resources, Expenditures, and Personnel (March, 2000).But this economic position has not deterred our judges from demanding more.See Canadian Press, "Salaries of Judges Take Flight" The Edmonton Journal (27 March 1999) AI3; G. Scotton, "Judges Seek Raise of $47,000 A Year" (1999) 19:35 Lawyers Weekly l; L. Chwialkowska, "Judges Press for 26% Raise" The National Post (IS February 2000) Al (which increase would provide superior judges with an annual salary of $225,000); N. Ayed, "Ottawa Battles Judges' Raise" The Edmonton Journal (IS February 2000) AIO; J. Ziegel, "Guilty of Being Too Greedy: Law Professor Jacob Ziegel Warns That Judges Want To Hold the Canadian Taxpayer To Ransom Over Their Salary and Pension Goals" The Globe and Mail (16 February 2000) Al7; "Committee Recommends Pay Raise for Federal Judges" Canadian Press Newswire (13 June 2000); K. Makin, "Ottawa Urged to Back Off on Salaries for Judges: Agency Overseeing Pay Needs More Autonomy, departing boss says" The Globe and Mail (29 August 2000) A8 (reporting on comments made by Guy Goulard on his resignation as Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs); Ont: Broadview Press, 1996).Though to a lesser degree, much the same may be said of the scholarship of Canadian legal academics on matters related to popular debate.In comparison, academic lawyers in America are both prolific and fearless.For two recent works on the matter of judicial selection, see D.A.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".