Bibliographic record
Abstract
It gives me such pride to be here tonight and to speak about Frank and his magnificent work.It truly is a very great pleasure and honour for me.For many years, Frank made working at the Supreme Court of Canada a sheer delight.His constant good nature, his kindness, his thoughtfulness and his good sense of fairness and keen sense of humour made it a joy to be associated with him.What can I say then about my friend at court, Frank Iacobucci?I can say, Without any hesitation, that he displayed all the attributes of a truly great judge.First, he was always diligent and exemplary in preparation his research and his writing.His thoroughness and care both in his preparation for hearing cases and in his writing served as an example to all members of the court.In this, as in every aspect of his work, he led by example.Second, he had an overwhelming sense of fairness.He always strived to find the truly just and balanced solution to the difficult situations presented by the cases before the court.Third, he had good common sense and a desire to see that things proceeded in a very orderly and sensible manner.Lastly, he had great courage.He was absolutely fearless in writing well ahead of the time of societal acceptance on unpopular subjects.Perhaps just a few cases will demonstrate these attributes.The first are two cases that deal with situations in the employment field.In "Machtinger v. HOJ Industries" there were two employees, the Credit Manager and the Sales Manager.They were both hired pursuant to indefinite contracts of employment.These same contracts provided that the employer could dismiss them without cause and without notice.Justice Iacobucci, for six of the seven judges sitting on the case, determined that indefinite contracts of employment included a deemed provision that the employer could only dismiss the employee upon giving reasonable notice.He found that although this was a rebuttable presumption, it was clear that an employer could not dismiss an employee without giving reasonable notice in cases of indefinite employment.The next case was "Wallace v. United Grain Growers".Mr. Wallace had 25 years of experience with the competitor of United.When United
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".