MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556715205

Wrongful Convictions in Canada

2011· article· en· W1556715205 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Cincinnati law review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleaInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsLawPolitical scienceCompensation (psychology)HomicideCriminologySociologyHuman rightsPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychologyFundamental rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An awareness of the alarming reality of wrongful convictions in both Canada and other criminal justice systems led the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 to overturn prior jurisprudence that allowed Canada to extradite fugitives to face the death penalty. 1 The Court decided that extradition to face the death penalty would generally violate the principles of fundamental justice in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2 The Court stressed that DNA would not be available in all cases, 3 and that even "a fair trial does not always guarantee a safe verdict." 4 This case presents a challenge to all courts and policy-makers to do better in responding to the risk of wrongful convictions. 5 It is also a reminder that all criminal justice systems that use the death penalty run an unacceptable risk of executing an innocent person.Another measure of the recognition of the reality of wrongful

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Cincinnati law reviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207