Pt 4A Dialogue on Dialogue Theory - His Brilliant Legacy: A Conference in Honour of Peter W. Hogg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
His Brilliant Legacy: A Conference in Honour of Peter W. Hogg was held on January 10, 2024 at Osgoode Professional Development and co-hosted by Osgoode Hall Law School and Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.\nThis session includes: "Dialogue on Dialogue Theory"\nPanelists discuss and critique the highly influential concept, at home and abroad, of "dialogue", the theory of review under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms proposed by Peter Hogg and Ms. Allison Thornton.\nChair: Professor Benjamin L. Berger, Osgoode Hall Law School\nSpeakers: Professor Allan Hutchinson, Osgoode Hall Law School, Ms. Allison Thornton, Associate Solicitor, City of Guelph, Professor Alison Young, David Williams Professor of Public Law, Cambridge University UK, Sujit Choudhry, Head of Chambers, Hāki Chambers Global
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".