MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484087257 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1110

Twenty-Five Years in Search of a Reasonable Approach

2008· article· en· W1484087257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michal Fairburn

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLegislatureScope (computer science)Code (set theory)Criminal codeLawCriminal procedurePolitical scienceSection (typography)Law and economicsCriminal lawComputer scienceSociologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the development of a myriad of investigative techniques subsequent to the enactment of s. 487 of the Criminal Code, which has resulted in a number of significant judicial pronouncements on the scope of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, in turn, parliamentary response. The paper outlines how this dialogue between the courts and the legislature has resulted in a proliferation of search provisions in the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, this has also resulted in a complex labyrinth of provisions containing confusing, often contradictory, requirements and logical inconsistencies. The paper details a number of significant examples, and concludes by suggesting ways some of the search provisions in the Criminal Code could be reorganized or rewritten.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207