MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206248230 · doi:10.21991/c9qx0s

CONSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUES BETWEEN COURTS AND LEGISLATURES: CAN WE TALK?

2011· article· en· W4206248230 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
The Honourable Chief Justice Catherine A Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislaturePolitical scienceDemocracyLawLaw and economicsSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic we have been asked to address is Courts on Legislatures.1 This raises the issue about the nature of the relationship between courts and legislatures in a constitutional democracy (and for my purposes, I treat the executive and legislative branches as one). The relationship between courts and legislatures is complex and challenging. However, it need not be controversial and conflicted as long as each understands and respects the institutional role played by the other – and the dividing line between them.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.056
Scholarly communication0.0300.063
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0150.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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