MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921820358 · doi:10.21991/cf29376

The Original Living Tree

2019· article· en· W2921820358 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Asher Honickman

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionArgument (complex analysis)Interpretation (philosophy)LawSupreme courtConstitutional interpretationDoctrineOrder (exchange)Political scienceTree (set theory)Constitutional lawJudicial interpretationSociologyPhilosophyEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main arguments in Canada in favour of the “living tree” doctrine is that it has deep roots in our constitutional tradition. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, the living tree is “one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation.” The argument goes something like this: beginning with the famous “Persons case” of 1929 (Edwards v. Canada(Attorney General)), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council recognized the Constitution to be a living tree, capable of evolving to meet new social and economic realities, and this method of constitutional interpretation has remained fundamental to Canada’s constitutional order ever since.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207