MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159762856 · doi:10.1111/fcre.12574

Taking a Shot: Access to Justice, Judging and eCourt

2021· article· en· W3159762856 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemSettlement (finance)Supreme courtEconomic JusticeDispute resolutionLawNova scotiaPolitical scienceOnline dispute resolutionAlternative dispute resolutionProcess (computing)SociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to Justice issues have shown us that our traditional adversarial dispute resolution model is slow, costly, divisive and complex ‐ for both self represented litigants and those with lawyers. Addressing these issues through the provision of information to litigants has not been enough. Family Justice reports speak of the need for “culture change” and judicial leadership in affecting change. Judges have created options to the traditional adversarial model with processes such as Settlement Conferences, Binding Settlement Conferences, Informal Trials and Case Management. COVID19 has “forced” courts to embrace Virtual and telephone proceedings. There are now choices in Court based, Judicially‐run dispute resolution processes. Nova Scotia's Supreme Court, Family Division has a process “add” ‐ an eCourt Pilot instituting an electronic, chat‐based Court process that gives litigants and Judges a new “choice” of process.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.252 · 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