Uneasy Abolitionists: Canada, the Death Penalty, and the Importance of International Norms, 1962-2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the early 1960s to 2005, with Canada’s ratification of the 1989 Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights, norms relating to the abolition of the death penalty have been advanced only incrementally, and in many respects tentatively. The process of making Canada abolitionist began at the level of high politics as an attempt to simultaneously make the criminal justice system more humane and bring Canada into the modern era. Parliament officially removed the death penalty from Canada’s Criminal Code in 1976 and defeated a motion to have it reinstated in 1987, and yet both debates were deeply divisive and did little to settle the issue for Canadians, the majority of whom still favoured the practice. This reluctance was later reflected in two high-profile cases involving the extradition of violent fugitives to the United States to face execution that were heard before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991 and 2000. Indeed, since the initial efforts to remove capital punishment from the Criminal Code, the abolitionist norm has had a tenuous hold in Canada, its eventual strengthening occurring only with the combination of the increase in authority of the Canadian judiciary in the era of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the emergence of definitive norms and laws at the international level.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".