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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.007

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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