MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953525916

THE JUDGES AND THE JOURNALS: CITATION OF PERIODICAL LITERATURE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, 1985-2004

2004· article· en· W2953525916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter J. McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawListing (finance)CitationPolitical scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court of Canada does not just declare outcomes – it also provides reasons that are constructed around citations to judicial authority. However, in recent decades the Court has also begun to cite academic authorities as well. This article examines the citation of a specific type of academic authority – namely periodical journals – over the twenty-year period marked by the new Supreme Court Reports format listing “Authors Noted” as well as “Cases Cited”. It explores the evolving frequency of such citations, identifies the judges who use them, and the journals, the authors, and the specific articles that have been cited most frequently.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0680.131
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207