Il ruolo dei giudici francofoni nella giurisprudenza della Corte suprema del Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il saggio investiga sul ruolo dei tre giudici francofoni che siedono nella Corte suprema. A tal fine, è stata esaminata la giurisprudenza del collegio, in particolare, valutando le pronunce in cui i giudici suddetti siano stati congiuntamente latori di opinioni dissenzienti rispetto alla maggioranza, al fine di verificare se la loro provenienza influenzasse la loro posizione. Alla luce dell’analisi, sembra di poter affermare che i giudici del Quebec non svolgono il ruolo di “rappresentanti” della Provincia, quanto piuttosto assicurano la competenza in materia di diritto civile e conferiscono legittimazione all’organo a cui appartengono. / 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡. 𝐴𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑖𝑚, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑦 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝐸̀𝑠 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 “𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡” 𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑐 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".