Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is firmly established that judges possess a discretionary power at common law to prevent the media from accessing and broadcasting court exhibits in certain circumstances. In Sylvester, Minden J. held that “[a]s custodian of the exhibits, the court is entitled to regulate the use to be made of the exhibits and to take steps to ensure it does not become an unwitting party to their misuse.” However, this discretionary judicial power should be exercised in accordance with general legal principles, case law, and statutory provisions so that consistent judgments in this area of law are rendered. In departing from the jurisprudence that demonstrated a general trend to favour media access to court exhibits, Cairn-Duff, a 2008 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision, is a noteworthy judgment in its interpretations of certain principles, its consideration of previously unacknowledged practicalities, and its shift in onus to the media of having to prove its access is warranted. Cairn-Duff essentially devised a new approach for deciding whether media access to court exhibits should be granted, which, if followed in subsequent cases, will have a rather sweeping effect of restricting media access to court exhibits for the purpose of broadcast.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".