MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Judicial Independence and Reformation of the Collegium System: Evaluating the Njac Judgement and Foreign Judicial Appointment Systems

2023· article· en· W4386309250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nikhil Srivastava -

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementJudicial independenceDissenting opinionLawPolitical scienceDemocracyDoctrineIndependence (probability theory)Supreme courtCommissionEconomic JusticePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Judicial Appointments Commission, introduced by the 99th constitutional amendment, was struck down by the Supreme Court of India while the collegium system was upheld. The basic structure doctrine of the independence of the judiciary was contested to be violated by the amendment, and the striking down of the amendment ensured that judicial supremacy was protected. Yet, India is the only country where the spirit of democracy is of utmost importance. Still, the judges are appointed by fellow judges in the current practice of the collegium system. In this research article, the researcher will evaluate the dissenting view of Justice Chelameswar in the NJAC judgement and tackle the issue of the need for reformation of the collegium system to make it more transparent and democratic. The article will also deal with a comparative analysis of the Indian judicial appointment setup and the setup of judicial appointments in foreign countries like the USA, UK, France, Australia and Canada to formulate recommendations for reformation in the Indian setup.

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)0.060
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.021
Scholarly communication0.0170.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary ResearchSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207