MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892429910

CANADA V PEIGAN:: HAS THE FEDERAL COURT GIVEN IN TO TEMPTATION?

2018· article· en· W2892429910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R James Fyfe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawOriginal jurisdictionJurisdictionSubject-matter jurisdictionFederal jurisdictionPolitical scienceAppealHigh CourtCourt of equityCourt of record
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada v Peigan is a landmark departure from its longstanding jurisprudence in relation to the Federal Court’s limited jurisdiction over the provinces. The Court’s primary concern in this case was to hold a province to its contractual undertaking to a First Nation to attorn to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court preferred contractual over legislative intent on these facts, and exceeded its jurisdiction in the process. Peigan is the first case in which the Court has assumed jurisdiction over a province under section 17 of the Federal Courts Act. Until Peigan, the Court had consistently rejected section 17 as a source of such jurisdiction. Peigan also marks a novel development for the doctrines of Crown immunity and the honour of the Crown.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207