MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125035025 · doi:10.21991/c93x1k

Purposive Interpretation, Quebec, and the Supreme Court Act

2013· article· en· W3125035025 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael Plaxton, Carissima Mathen

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Supreme courtLawPolitical scienceEconomic JusticePoint (geometry)SociologyPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this brief paper, we examine the interpretive problem raised by Justice Nadon’s appointment. Because Binnie’s interpretation of sections 5 and 6 is one of the only discussions of this issue, and is likely to infl uence any subsequent legal analysis, we take his opinion as a starting point.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207