MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12510238 · doi:10.29173/alr328

Come on Mann Don’t Search Me! A Case Comment on R. v. C.J.F.

2009· article· en· W12510238 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael A. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerSupreme courtLawPower (physics)WarrantPolitical scienceState (computer science)Criminal procedureEconomic JusticeSearch and seizureProbable causeCriminologySociologyBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Mann the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the police have the power to detain individuals, albeit briefly, for investigative purposes. The Court also supplemented this power with the power to conduct protective searches incident to these investigative detentions (PSIIDs). While the Court made it clear that the power to conduct these searches was not incident to every investigative detention, this power should, nevertheless, be regarded dubiously. The conditions required to conduct a PSIID are lower than those required for a peace officer to make an arrest without a warrant under s. 495 of the Criminal Code for violations of ss. 884 or 905 of the Code. Allowing the police to wield both of these weapons against “crime” augments police power to engage in warrantless searches, and concomitantly decreases individual rights. The recent decision of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, in C.J.F., illustrates the corrosive effect that Mann and its PSIIDs can have “on the right of individuals to walk the streets free from state interference.” C.J.F. challenges us to ensure that Mann is being properly applied, but it also challenges us to understand the effect of having PSIIDs.

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)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0260.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207