Pintea v Johns: 18 Months Later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Pintea v Johns, the Supreme Court of Canada endorses the Principles established by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) regarding self-represented litigants (Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons, henceforth the CJC Principles). These Principles outline the obligations and responsibilities owed by judges to SRLs and the obligations and responsibilities of SRLs when they participate in the court process. The Principles acknowledge the disadvantage SRLs are at in navigating the complexities of the legal system on their own and often facing counsel on the other side, and exhort judges to take this into consideration in managing cases and rendering decisions. Specifically, Pintea addressed the application of the law of contempt to an SRL and held that the individual in question, who was self-represented, could not be held in contempt of an order if he was not made aware of that order.\nAs of October 2018, 38 cases reported in our source database (Westlaw) have referenced the Pintea decision in some way. We took a look at how these cases were decided, and how they applied or distinguished Pintea and the CJC Principles
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".