MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1029154964 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1415

Bail, Global Justice, and the Limits of Dissent

2003· article· en· W1029154964 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jackie Esmonde

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissentPolitical scienceLawCivil disobedienceEconomic JusticeCivil libertiesDemocracyStatutory lawCriminologySociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the ways in which the law of bail has been used to criminalize dissent in Canada. Three case studies are analyzed to demonstrate how the law of bail has been applied to those arrested at global justice demonstrations associated with militant civil disobedience. The first case study examines the bail conditions imposed on protesters arrested at anti-APEC demonstrations in Vancouver 1997. These bail conditions were intentionally designed to prevent those arrested from attending the protests. The second case study focuses on the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), with an analysis of how the bail system has been used to criminalize its activism through a combination of bail conditions prohibiting public protest, pre-trial detention orders of its leaders, and prohibitions on association with OCAP. The final case study turns to arrests at demonstrations against the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April 2001, documenting the intentional violation of the statutory right to a bail hearing within 24 hours, and the denial of bail to a perceived leader of the global justice movement. Viewed together, these case studies demonstrate that the law of bail has provided insufficient protections for civil liberties.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.039
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207