MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7057496678

Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States

2010· article· en· W7057496678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationGovernment (linguistics)LegislatureJudicial independenceConstitution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROFESSOR MALVINA HALBERSTAM: Judicial review is one of the great gifts of American jurisprudence to the world.It was established over 200 years ago by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. 2 It has recently been enshrined in the constitutions of a number of new states.But, judicial review does not mean the same thing in every country.Judicial review in Israel, the United States, and Canada differ in a number of respects, including whether there are limitations on the kinds of questions the Court decides; whether the questions can be brought directly to the Supreme Court or are filtered through lower court decisions; whether Supreme Court review is as of right or in the Court's discretion; whether decisions are made by the Court as a whole or by panels; and on how judges are appointed to the Court, all of which affect the nature and scope of judicial review.More fundamentally, how broad should judicial review be in a democracy?Should the courts be the ultimate deciders of everything or should there be limitations?I'll begin by asking members of the panel to briefly summarize how judges are selected in each country, whether review is discretionary or as of right, whether the cases are heard by panels or by the Court as a whole, and whether judicial review is based on the constitution, legislation, or a decision of the Court.We'll then proceed to discuss substantive issues such as limitations, if any, on judicial review in each of the countries, the pros and cons of such limitations, cases in which the Court's assertion of jurisdiction has been particularly controversial, legislation proposed to address some of those problems-particularly in Israel but, perhaps, in other countries as well-and a discussion of the proper scope of judicial review in a democratic society, a question on which there are very strong differences of opinion.We'll conclude with presentations by Professor Friedmann, Justice Rubinstein, and the Honorable

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0250.020
Scholarly communication0.0200.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207