MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394701262 · doi:10.25071/sfvwtz34

The Charter dialogue between courts and legislatures

2000· article· en· W4394701262 on OpenAlexaff
Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Watch · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureCharterPolitical scienceLegislative intentPublic administrationLawLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J udicial review is the term that is used to describe the action of courts in striking down laws.Lawyers and political scientists, especially those employed at universities, love to debate the question whether judicial review is legitimate.The question arises because, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the judges, who are neither elected to their offices nor accountable for their actions, are vested with the power to strike down laws that have FEATURESThe Charter dialogue between courts and legislatures Peter W.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.039
Scholarly communication0.0380.017
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0210.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada WatchSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207