MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W122484647

Rationalizing Similar Facts: A Comment on R. v. Handy

2003· article· en· W122484647 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hamish Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtRationalization (economics)ConvictLawValue (mathematics)Reasonable doubtJuryCharacter (mathematics)Criminal trialVerdictFederal Rules of EvidenceAdmissible evidencePsychologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Handy provides a welcome restatement and rationalization of the law governing the admissibility of an accused person's prior bad acts (similar evidence). The court recognizes that evidence of prior bad acts is evidence of bad character. But the court clearly states that such evidence is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the accused has a bad character. Rather, evidence of prior bad acts will be admissible only if it has probative value with respect to a specific, identified, and live issue at the trial and if that probative value outweighs two kinds of prejudicial effects: its tendency to encourage the trier of fact to convict the accused for being a bad person and its tendency to confuse and prolong the trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207