Reflections on the legal Evolution of Free Expression in Canada and Colombia in the Context of Democratic Consolidation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to understand the manner in which\nthe commitment to freedom of expression has evolved\nin both Canada and Colombia, based on the examination\nof historical patterns and court decisions. Through the\nlens of the Canadian experience, it looks at the difficulties\nfaced by Colombia, where the state is still struggling to\nexercise the monopoly of power within its own territory\nas a first stumbling block to the consolidation of its\ndemocracy. Any effort to compare the exercise of liberties\nin two countries with such different legal traditions\nfaces obvious challenges, even more so when after 200\nyears of independence one of the countries has still\nfailed to achieve the stability and security required to\nassure sustainable economic development. However, in the 21st century the principles underlying the political and economic systems of both\ncountries are the same, and they share, at least formally, a commitment to respect\ndemocracy, human rights and principles of good government. This is the primary\nmotivation behind this analysis.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it