MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500173462 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1198

The Frontiers of Human Rights: Reflections on the Implications of the Supreme Court’s Judgments in Omar Khadr 2008 and 2010

2010· article· en· W1500173462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alex Neve

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterLawHuman rightsSupreme courtPolitical scienceJurisdictionAfghanBattlefieldCitizenshipHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of the extra-territorial reach of Canada’s international human rights obligations, as enforced through the Charter has been at the heart of several recent high-profile cases, including the handling of battlefield detainees in Afghanistan and the plight of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, held at Guantánamo Bay since October 2002. Omar Khadr’s case has come before the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions and in both instances the Court held that the Charter applied when Canadian officials interrogated him at Guantánamo Bay in clear breach of Canada’s international human rights obligations. However, in other cases courts have refused to allow extra-territorial application of the Charter, including the Afghan prisoners case and the cases of Guantánamo prisoners who were also questioned by Canadian officials but who do not carry Canadian citizenship. This article examines the different reasoning used in these conflicting cases and makes a call for a coherent approach in line with Canada’s international human rights obligations.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207