MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122262214 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v32i1.4521

PROCESS MATTERS - EMPIRICALLY EVALUATING ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN THE HEALTH SECTOR: THE QUESTIONABLE NEUTRALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PROCESS

2015· article· en· W3122262214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lydia Stewart Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalPolitical scienceHumanitiesLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The health tribunal process is assumed to be neutral and allow for the tribunal’s focus to be on the parties’ legal arguments. This study quantitatively examined approximately 400 decisions over a five-year period to determine whether or not health tribunal hearings are neutral or whether the hearing process itself affects the tribunal’s decision independent of the parties’ legal arguments. Certain tribunal procedures affected tribunal decisions independent of legal arguments. This novel quantitative research matrix, which analysed cases over a five year time period, identified trends which are overlooked in traditional legal analysis of judicial review.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207