MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122199453 · doi:10.1163/22134514-45060013

Inside the Judicial Mind: Exploring Judicial Methodology in the Mixed Legal System of Quebec

2013· article· en· W3122199453 on OpenAlex
Rosalie Jukier

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Comparative Law and Governance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtJudicial independenceJurisdictionPolitical scienceDe factoJudicial activismEconomic JusticeJudicial reviewJudicial opinion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores judicial methodology in the mixed legal system of Quebec and examines, in particular, how the nature of its legal system as a mixed legal system influences the judicial methodology of its judges, especially with respect to the de facto use of precedent. Features of the mixity, including the institutional setting of Quebec courts as courts of inherent jurisdiction, the nature of Quebec’s civil justice system and procedural law, as well as the judicial role and the effect of a supreme precedential authority (in the Supreme Court of Canada) are examined in turn as influential factors.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.160 · 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