Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews issued “ministerial directions” to Canada’s key security and intelligence agencies on “information sharing with foreign entities”. These directions permit information sharing in exigent circumstances, even “when doing so may give rise to a substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual”. The directions prompted a brief chorus of condemnation. They have since sunk into relative obscurity, remaining part of the Canada’s national security policy framework. And yet, in trying to walk the fine line between principle and realism in the administration of Canada’s approach to torture, they continue to raise pressing moral and legal questions. This Article aims to reignite discussion of these policies and their controversial content, relying in large measure on documents obtained by this author directly or through journalistic researchers under access to information law. It examines dilemmas raised when information is shared between human rights-observing and abusing states and then focuses on the legal parameters and policy context in which both “in-bound” and “out-bound” information-sharing takes place. It then analyzes the 2011 instruments and considers their legality under both international and domestic law. The Article concludes that legality of the measures is doubtful in international law – at least in so far as “out-bound” information sharing is concerned – and domestic criminal culpability and constitutional validity are very close questions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".