MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946164901 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v49i2.46292

Trinity Western University’s Law School: Quo Vadis?

2018· article· en· W2946164901 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Kent Donlevy, Dianne Gereluk, James M. Brandon, Peggy Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoLawPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the contentious juridical history involving Trinity Western University’s proposed law school the resistance of the law societies in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario to accredit graduates from that proposed school. Issues involving the appropriate standard of legal review, in assessing the legality of the resistance by the three law societies, the balancing of section 2(a) and 15 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Berlinian perspective of balancing positive and negative liberty in resolving the issue of balancing those Charter rights is addressed. The paper concludes that the resolution of past injustices to a particular class of Canadians, including the possible limiting of law school positions in Canada, ought not to ground a claim for provincial statutory bodies to act against Trinity Western University.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207