MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385511500 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1421

The Impact of Vavilov: Reasonableness and Vulnerability

2021· article· en· W4385511500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorne Sossin

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipSupreme courtLawTrilogyJudicial reviewPolitical scienceImmigrationStandard of reviewVulnerability (computing)Administrative lawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov and Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (the “Admin Law Trilogy”), the Supreme Court of Canada embarked on an ambitious revamp of the Canadian law of judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court’s lead decision, Vavilov, has broad implications for Canadian public law. Specifically, in this comment, I explore the Court’s introduction of an important, new contextual factor to the reasonableness analysis — that of the impact of an impugned decision on those affected by it, and particularly, those with existing vulnerabilities.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
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 score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.030
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207