MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Speaking to power: mechanisms for judicial–executive dialogue

2017· book-chapter· en· W4251548378 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. John O'Dowd

Bibliographic record

VenueManchester University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanacea (medicine)Power (physics)Political scienceExecutive powerEconomic JusticeLawPsychologyPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John O’Dowd’s chapter concentrates upon the relationship between the executive and judiciary, specifically the communication, or lack thereof, between these institutions. He refers to some recent controversial episodes where this lack of communication has been problematic and suggests looking to Canada for potential solutions. The chapter concludes that a judicial council is no panacea for the ills that can afflict the relationship between politicians and judges. Individual judges (and especially the Chief Justice and other court presidents) will retain a role in bringing the concerns of the judiciary to the executive’s attention and sometimes also to the attention of the public and this inevitably runs the risk of cutting across politicians’ own priorities and sensitivities.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManchester University Press eBooksSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207