Bibliographic record
Abstract
wenty years ago, in R v Creighton, the Supreme Court of Canada debated a crucial issue -the appropriate fault standard for the offence of "unlawful act" manslaughter. 1This is where an accused commits an unlawful act that results in the unintended death of another individual.Unlawful act manslaughter is distinguishable from murder in that the latter requires, at the very least, subjective foreseeability of death on the part of the accused. 2 By contrast, in Creighton, the Court unanimously held that in connection with unlawful act manslaughter, an objective, rather than subjective standard of fault applied.In Creighton, an experienced drug dealer and user injected another user with heroin resulting in her death.However, the Court was narrowly split as to whether the standard should be objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory (the majority opinion and the current standard of fault) or objective foreseeability of death (the dissenting opinion). 3 The dissenting position
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".