Settlement Conferences and Judicial Role: The Scaffolding for Expanded Thinking about Judicial Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian judges are participating more often in settlement processes, which vary in form across the country. As traditional judicial roles expand and give way to new ones, so must frameworks for ethical decision-making. Ethical reasoning in this new setting must integrate values which are both individual (internal) and contextual. In developing this argument, the authors explore (1) how mature and adaptive ethical reasoning skills are acquired as a matter of human psychology; (2) foundational ideas about judicial role found in existing Canadian ethical guidelines; (3) potentially transferable values from codes of conduct in the private dispute resolution field; (4) developing ideologies and styles of judicial mediation. The article concludes that judicial mediators can (and ought to) anchor their own internal compasses to broader principles and understandings about role, that these broader principles can be developed using the above sources of guidance, and that judicial action is needed to advance this task.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".