Preface to Canadian Journal of Practical Philosophy (CJPP), Volume 10, 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Volume, we are pleased to present a sequel to Volume 9, “Eclectic Topics in Practical Philosophy: Issues and Perspectives” (2023). Volume 10 contains two special papers: 1) “Ultimate Integrity” by Christopher M. Maier and “The State of Court Administration in Ontario: A Preliminary Analysis of the Post-COVID Environment in the Ontario Court of Justice,” by Bruce Preston. In the first paper, Christopher Maier argues that unlimited liability (UL), a pillar of the ethos of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) which obligates service members to accept as legally binding orders that may result in their death, is problematic and needs to be replaced by an alternate notion: ultimate integrity (UI). At worse, UL provides reasons for actions through veiled threats. At best, UL is unexceptional and unhelpful because it pushes service members to make rational, outcome-based decisions from a personal point of view. An ethos based on UI is more appropriate to the CAF, the first principle of which is to ‘respect the dignity of all persons,’ and better corresponds with deeply held beliefs about the nobility of military sacrifice. The paper concludes by recommending that UI replace UL as a mainstay of CAF ethics. In the second paper, Bruce Preston argues that the delay and backlog with which Canadian courts have been struggling for decades, became worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that the pandemic has been declared over, we have an opportunity to take stock of where things stand. Focusing on the Ontario Court of Justice, and the decision of R. v C.L., this paper argues that judges are doing all they can under the circumstances to facilitate the disposition of cases. Any improvement to current conditions will require a renewed discussion of alternate models of court administration and judicial independence. The paper concludes that it is time to take a fresh look at the recommendations of Jules Deschênes’ and Carl Baar’s Masters in Their Own House (1981) and the Canadian Judicial Council’s Administering Justice for the Public (2007). These papers are special by virtue of their topics and the respective contributions they make to practical philosophy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.261 | 0.074 |
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".