Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of a study of the main ethical principles of judges’ activities in foreign countries on the example of the Canadian judicial system. On the basis of regulations, case law, recommendations of the Judicial Council of Canada and scientific publications, the author examines the peculiarities of regulatory fixation and implementation of such ethical principles of judicial activity in Canada as the principles of judicial independence, good faith, equality, impartiality, non-partisanship, and necessity. The well-known ethical and legal principles of judicial activity in democratic states governed by the rule of law include the following requirements for judges: to exercise their judicial functions independently and without outside influence; to reject firmly any attempt to influence their decisions in any case before the court outside the due process of law; to promote and support measures and safeguards aimed at maintaining and strengthening the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary; to demonstrate and maintain high standards of judicial conduct. The author establishes that the legal system and case law of Canada pay special attention to such ethical principles of judges’ activities as the principles of judicial independence, good faith, equality, impartiality, non-partisanship, and necessity. Particular attention is paid to the regulation of a judge’s participation in public life, his or her involvement in political processes, his or her past work in business structures, corporate ethics of interaction between a judge and colleagues and other parties to a hearing, including lawyers, avoidance of conflicts of interest, and even requirements for ethical behavior of his or her relatives. Many of the rules and practical aspects of judges’ activities in Canada should be additionally taken into account in the Ukrainian judicial practice.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".