MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908908358 · doi:10.29173/alr1427

The New Federal Judicial Appointments Process: The First Ten Years

2000· article· en· W2908908358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andre S. Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Economic JusticeLawProcess (computing)Political sciencePublic administrationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a brief history of the process for selecting federally appointed Judges, which was first announced in 1988. The article summarizes the major changes in the selection process since 1988 and provides descriptions of some of the key policies and procedures. Several Appendices present further information on the selection process for the years 1989 to 1999. The Appendices include a statistical report of applications, recommendations and appointments, the members of the Advisory Committees, the Ministers of Justice and Commissioners for Federal Judicial Affairs, and the Personal History Form for candidates for judicial selection. Please note that events and information after December, 1999, are not reflected in the above material.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207