MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976100056 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1374

A Chief and Court in Transition: The Wagner Court and the Constitution

2020· article· en· W2976100056 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissenting opinionDissentMajority opinionSupreme courtLawJurisprudenceConcurring opinionEconomic JusticePolitical scienceRoberts CourtConstitutionPrecedentOriginal jurisdictionCourt of recordPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On December 17, 2017, and after little more than five years as a puisne judge, Richard Wagner became Canada’s 18th Chief Justice. Only William Ritchie and Bora Laskin rose to office more expeditiously. When appointed, Wagner J. was less well known than Beverley McLachlin, who served 10 years on the Court before becoming Chief Justice. Between 1989 and 2000, she was a vigorous jurist, writing frequently and at times fearlessly. In part because her jurisprudence moved unpredictably between liberal and conservative outcomes, her decisions were much discussed, if imperfectly understood. By contrast, those commenting on Wagner J.’s appointment were hard pressed to cite a body of work, and focused instead on his reputation as a collegial, fair-minded, and hardworking member of the Court.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.008
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207