MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414065304 · doi:10.1017/ilm.2025.10113

Briefly Noted

2025· article· en· W4414065304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Legal Materials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealSupreme courtCharterPlaintiffGovernment (linguistics)Indigenous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On May 1, 2025, the Canadian Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Government of Ontario in a youth-driven climate case in which seven youth plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge to the Government’s lack of action with respect to climate change. As reported by JURIST , the plainfiffs argued that Ontario’s use of Section 16 of the 2018 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act to modify the 2016 Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act resulted in a watering down of the requirments in the Climate Change Act and effectively subjects youth and indigenous communities to dangerous and arbitrary levels of CO2 emissions. They seek an order declaring that their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms have been violated. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded in October 2024 that government climate change targets must comply with the Charter and affirmed that the government’s actions are putting people at risk. The refusal by the Supreme Court to take the appeal confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal means the case will return to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ application.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2460.110

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Legal MaterialsSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207