Étude de l’influence de la Revue de droit d’Ottawa auprès de la Cour suprême du Canada (de 1966 à 2017) (Assessing the Influence of the Ottawa Law Review at the Supreme Court of Canada (1966–2017))
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans cette etude, nous examinons l’incidence des articles publies par la Revue de droit d’Ottawa (RDO) sur l’elaboration et l’evolution du droit a la Cour supreme du Canada (CSC) de 1966 a 2017; nous enumerons, a cet effet, le nombre de fois ou la RDO a ete citee par la CSC par rapport a d’autres revues de droit similaires. L’etude presente, en outre, une liste de 47 articles de la RDO ayant ete cites par la CSC ainsi qu’une analyse des sept articles de la RDO les plus cites. Enfin, elle renferme une liste des 54 arrets de la CSC dans lesquels des articles de la RDO ont ete cites. L’etude conclut par des recommandations destinees a assurer que les articles publies dans la RDO a l’avenir demeurent pertinents dans le cadre du travail accompli par la CSC. English Abstract: This study examines the impact of the articles published by the Ottawa Law Review (OLR) on the development of the law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) from 1966 to 2017. It identifies how often the OLR was cited by the SCC compared to other similar law reviews. It also provides a list of 47 OLR articles that have been cited by the SCC and an analysis of the seven most-cited OLR articles. Finally, it contains a list of 54 SCC judgments in which OLR articles were cited. The study concludes with recommendations aimed at ensuring that articles published in the OLR in the future remain relevant to the work of the SCC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".