MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539150207 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1461

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Law and Policy

2001· article· en· W1539150207 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elizabeth A. Sheehy

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentenceLife imprisonmentDiscretionLegislationLawImprisonmentCriminal codeCriminal lawTheme (computing)Political scienceLinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal takes up the theme of mandatory minimum sentencing in Canada: the historical and current manifestations in criminal laws; its public policy dimensions; its impact on diverse communities; the pressures it exerts at different points in the criminal process; and its constitutional implications.Mandatory minimum sentences are sentences that are dictated by legislation as either an absolute mandatory sentence, for example life imprisonment for an individual convicted of murder in Canada, or as a minimum sentence below which a judge cannot descend in considering sentencing options for a given offence.When framed as a minimum sentence, the judge's only discretion is to sentence above the minimum threshold up to the legislated maximum.Although the legal scholarship on mandatory minimum sentencing in the United States is vast' and there is a developing body of Australian jurisprudence on the topic, 2 the Canadian literature remains sparse?In 2001,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0130.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207