MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W55165375 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1041

Standard of Review from Decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal

2002· article· en· W55165375 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Stuart Rapsey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalRental housingRentingBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'article aborde essentiellement la question de la norme d'examen applicable aux appels de d6cisions rendues par le Tribunal du logement de l'Ontario en vertu de la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires interjet6s auprbs de la Cour divisionnaire de l'Ontario.I1 y a un volume consid6rable de d6cisions contradictoires portant sur la jurisprudence d'appel sur la question.L'auteur conclut qu'une norme de bien-fond6 devrait s'appliquer aux d6cisions du Tribunal.En outre, il examine bri~vement la norme d'examen appliqu6e dans les proc6dures de r6vision du Tribunal et dans les demandes d'examen judiciaire aupr~s de la Cour divisionnaire.Pour ce qui est des examens effectu6s par le Tribunal, l'auteur conclut que le Tribunal a adopt6 une d6marche inutilement restrictive.10.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicProperty Rights and Legal DoctrineFrench-language works237,207