Bibliographic record
Abstract
The province of Alberta continues to lack a comprehensive history of the courts and the various judicial districts to which judges were assigned.The first judges of the newly created North-West Territories were appointed in 1876 and the judicial system went through several different stages, following and supporting, | believe, the opening and the settling of the new Territories.The legislation creating the court system went into force in Alberta in 1907, two years after the founding of the province.It will suffice to mention that in 1935 two District Courts were created: that of Northern Alberta and that of Southern Alberta which incorporated all previously existing District Courts.Between 1975 and 1979 the District Court of Alberta replaced the Northern and Southern Alberta District Courts; in turn this court disappeared when in June 1979 the entire federal court system was restructured and judges were assigned to the Court of Queen's Bench.In spite of the fact that sources of information are not by any means scarce, the complex task of providing an exhaustive account of the Alberta judicial system has not been attempted so far.To find Italian names in The Canadian Law List we have to wait for the post-Second World War years, but in 1922-23, in a west that was still very, very wild, two Italians faced British law because of events which were to result in one of the most sensational trials in western Canada; one that has become part of local folklore.I am referring to the trial of Emilio Picariello and Florence Lassandro who both went to the gallows on 2 May 1923 in Fort Saskatchewan.Until some twenty years ago, in the literature related to the Crow's Nest Pass, the Picariello case was presented in a page at
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".