Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the Canadian experience regarding access to justice, i.e., the activities of the commissions of inquiry and the initiation of the nationwide dialog on rethinking the concept of access to justice. It is indicated that access to justice is considered in Canada as one of the national priorities. Among the wide range of contributing factors, it is distinguished the activities of commissions of inquiry and the impact of their reports, a nationwide public debate, the legal problem surveys and researches, analysis of their data, the use of indicators to measure progress, etc. It is noted that the independent commissions of inquiry can be understood as an established and effective mechanism used not only to investigate disasters or accusations of public figures (fact-finding inquiries), but also to comprehensively and impartially inquire into issues of public concern, make recommendations for the development of public policy and advise the government (policy-based inquiries); therefore, the reports of such commissions have a de facto significant impact on society and contribute to reforms; the best examples regarding access to justice are the Macdonald Report and the Abella Report. The contribution of judges to the commissions of inquiry is emphasized, given judge’ professional skills of independent and impartial consideration, assessing evidence, running a procedurally fair process, following procedural requirements, etc. The influence of the reports of the commissions of inquiry on the public discussion of the issue of access to justice is characterized. It was analyzed that the public debate in Canada regarding access to justice was initiated at the end of 1990s. both at the provincial level and at the federal (nationwide) level, and was primarily concerned with rethinking the attitude to the concept of “access to justice”. It was emphasized that the Ukrainian translation of the term «access to justice» does not reflect all the nuances of the original. Since the concept of “access to justice” arose and developed in the English-speaking environment, where fairness (“equity”) and the system of laws in a country thatjudges and punishes people are denoted by the same word “justice”, therefore, “access to justice” refers primarily to fairness and not just to a court as a state institution. It is emphasized that although the concept of “people-centered justice” did not yet exist at that time, Canada put consideration of the individual and his or her legal problems at the heart of justice responses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".