Into the Future: Confirming Our Common Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following Part I of the Into the Future conference in May of this year it was clear that the findings of the 1996 Systems of Civil Justice Task Force Report have been widely accepted, and that many of the recommendations made in that report have been implemented by various Canadian jurisdictions. It was equally clear however that the fundamental problems described in the Report - cost, delay and complexity inhibiting access to justice - have not been resolved, and they remain for virtually all jurisdictions, serious and pressing concerns. This document is written in anticipation of Part II of the Into the Future conference, in order to provide a point of departure for a discussion about civil justice reform among representatives from all of the sectors and jurisdictions of our justice system. The Canadian Forum on Civil Justice (“the Forum”) hopes that Canadian jurisdictions can work together to articulate a common vision for the civil justice system and to create a stronger voice for reform within every province and territory.
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 | 0.062 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".