MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061344813

A QUANTITATIVE EXPLORATION OF JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING IN CANADIAN INCOME TAX CASES

2006· article· en· W7061344813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingSupreme courtIncome taxRanked voting systemGross incomeState supreme courtState income tax
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

iv The dissertation explores the influences of socio-demographic characteristics of judges on their decision making in Canadian income tax cases. In analyzing historical data on judges and judicial decision making in income tax cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1920-2003 and Tax Court of Canada in 1983-2004, socio-demographic characteristics of judges are found to have influenced their decision making in income tax cases. However, the decision-influencing socio-demographic characteristics are found to steer judges to vote in different directions in the two courts. The differences are interpreted to be hints of the presence of influences other than those from socio-demographic variables on decision making in the two courts. Based on the findings on the influences of socio-demographic characteristics on the historical voting patterns, voting scenarios are constructed to show different and varied propensities to vote for taxpayers of judges of the two courts. The voting scenarios suggest that taxpayers may be more likely to win in the current Supreme Court of Canada than in the

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)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207