カナダにおける「法資料へのアクセス」と「法の支配」の一断面 : CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canadaを例として
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) deliverd the opinion on CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada. Law Society of Upper Canada (hereinafter "LSUC") provided copies of legal materials held by its "Great Library" to the members. Majour legal publishers claimed a delcaration that the LSUC had infringed plantiff's copyright. The LSUC submitted that "public interest" is a defence based upon general principle of common law and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One question in this case is whether the LSUC's duty to maintain "due administration of justice" and "rule of law" override plantiff's copyright or not. In this paper, the author examine the both parties' argument on this point and try to find the LSUC's argument is not based upon "citizen's interest accessing legal materials" but upon very traditional sense of "access to justice through lawyers."
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".