MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W986005766

The time to disposition of a disciplinary matter before the College of Chiropractors of Ontario

2002· article· en· W986005766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allan Gotlib

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawStatuteMandateDisciplinePolitical scienceLawAgency (philosophy)JurisdictionCharterMedicinePublic administrationSociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case analysis was undertaken of the discipline committee files at the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) which is the regulatory agency whose statutory mandate is to protect the public interest. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to quantify the time element in each case, with respect to disposition of a matter that came before the discipline committee regardless of whether a guilty or innocent determination was made, or even if the referral to discipline was unwarranted. The time period examined was 1994 to 2001 inclusive. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In exercising statutory authority, administrative tribunals must clearly understand due process and procedural fairness. Parties to a discipline proceeding each have their respective rights including the right to natural justice and these rights must be weighed fairly, and balanced with respect to societal rights. Delayed proceedings may challenge an individual's Charter rights and may also offend the administrative legal duties imposed by statute. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (27) files were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this study. The results indicate that the average time to complete a disciplinary process and for a case to be disposed was 19.5 months with a range of 6 months to 45 months. These results cover the eight year period since the RHPA was proclaimed into force. Disposition for the purposes of this study does not include any additional time related to subsequent submissions to penalty imposition. CONCLUSIONS: The regulatory model currently in place in the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario with respect to the College of Chiropractors as well as the other regulated professions is undergoing a period of review. The original intent of the RHPA was to allow the public equal rights and remedies with respect to dealing with each of the regulated professions. The results of this study draw attention to the length of a statutorily defined process which was designed to protect the public interest. It remains open to the participants in the process to determine the ultimate benefits.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207