La reforma del proceso de selección y nombramiento de los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá: el caso particular de Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo analiza la reciente reforma del proceso de selección y nombramiento de los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá. Partiendo de un análisis sobre la naturaleza constitucional de la institución, se abordan cuestiones acerca de su composición, con especial énfasis en las funciones desempeñadas por el Parlamento federal. Con esta base, se estudia el nuevo sistema de selección y nombramiento, prestando especial atención a cómo este ha servido para articular la participación de Quebec en el mismo, materializando una de las demandas tradicionales de dicha provincia.This paper´s aim is to analyze the recent reform of the process of selection and appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. After analyzing the constitutional nature of the institution, it covers aspects such as its composition and eligibility, including the role of the federal Parliament. Following this, the system of selection and appointment is studied with a special focus on how it can channel the participation of Quebec, achieving one of the traditional demands of that province.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".