MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404469194 · doi:10.29173/alr2800

Over a Shadowed Threshold: Supreme Court of British Columbia Litigation Activity 1992-2022

2024· article· en· W4404469194 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Donald Netolitzky

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court of British Columbia between 2002 to 2022 published “Annual Reports” that include information and statistics from 1992 to 2022 concerning Court litigation and activities. Compiled Annual Report data and calculations permit the first long-duration survey of different litigation type volumes, specific process activities, and the frequency at which court and judicial resources could not support scheduled proceedings in a provincial superior court of inherent jurisdiction. The resulting observations in this article are strong support for further and expanded quantitative investigation and evaluation of Canadian courts and their operation. While the overall volume of new Supreme Court of British Columbia activity is generally stable, extended timeline data reveals long-duration shifts in the frequency of certain litigation types, and a general decrease in trial volume, with the largest decreases being in criminal subject litigation. However, the volume of “long chambers” interlocutory processes has remained stable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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 topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207