A QUANTITATIVE EXPLORATION OF JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING IN CANADIAN INCOME TAX CASES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it