MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404469162 · doi:10.29173/alr2789

Erosion of University Autonomy: Judicial Supervision of University Conduct

2024· article· en· W4404469162 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Anna SP Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomySociologyLawPolitical scienceLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The university was once envisaged as an autonomous, self-governing institution where academic endeavours could flourish sans outside interference. It is a vision with diminishing correspondence to reality. This article explores the degree of autonomy afforded to universities when the university visitor was given a prominent role to play in adjudicating disputes in contrast to contemporary times when universities find themselves increasingly — and inconsistently — under the supervision of the judiciary. By examining university focused jurisprudence involving judicial review, civil litigation, and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges, the article highlights instances where universities have fallen under the scrutiny of judicial oversight, and circumstances where the courts have chosen not to intervene. The article concludes that today’s universities are subject to both public and private law as administrative decision-makers and quasi-public institutions.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.031
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.007
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Issues in EducationFrench-language works237,207