MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W33884038 · doi:10.29173/alr308

Distinguishing Charity and Politics: The Judicial Thinking Behind the Doctrine of Political Purposes

2008· article· en· W33884038 on OpenAlex
Adam Parachin

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrinePoliticsJurisprudenceLawPolitical scienceLegal doctrinePolitical questionJudicial opinionLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article identifies and critiques the rationales articulated by courts in support of the doctrine of political purposes in charity law. The author argues that courts have failed to cogently account for the doctrine. The author traces the doctrine back to a judicial misstatement of the law in an early twentieth century decision. The author then points out the flaws and limitations with the various justifications that have since been developed in the Canadian and English jurisprudence in support of the doctrine. The article concludes with the observation that the shortcomings with the doctrine are symptomatic of a larger theoretical failing in the law of charity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.290 · 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