MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900941409

Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike

2015· article· en· W2900941409 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerard Kennedy, Mary Angela Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeferenceAppealScope (computer science)LawPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeGovernment (linguistics)Motion (physics)Law and economicsSociologyComputer sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Looking at a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the authors express concern about expanding the types of government (in)actions that are held to be beyond the scope of judicial review. At the same time, they submit that the motion to strike could have been used to dismiss the claim at issue. The view the motion to strike as a generally underutilized tool to achieve access to justice.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCriminal Law and Evidence→French-language works237,207→