Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate concerning the constitutionality and the possible repeal of s. 43 of the Criminal Code, the so-called "spanking" provision, has raised an important issue: when a parent touches a child without the child's consent, under what conditions is the parent's conduct an assault? Supporters of the'repeal of s. 43 have suggested that parents are protected from inappropriate prosecutions by the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and by the common law defences of de minimis non curat lex and necessity But prosecutorial discretion is not a suitable substitute for a proper definition of the scope of criminal liability,and the defences ofde minimis and necessity do not cover many typical situations in which parents apply non-consensual force to children for proper purposes. Further development of the common law defence of "deemed consent" would be more promising. This defence is available as a defence when a parent, a teacher,or another caregiver uses proportionate force in touching a child for a proper purpose. Because of certain problems in the common law definition and application of this defence, Parliament should enact a defence of "parental care," clearly restating the legal standard governing the touching of a child for a proper purpose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".