Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the influence of the Charter over the development of victims’ rights through provincial and federal legislative reform and related jurisprudence. It discusses how the role of the victim has evolved from one of silent observer to one with significant procedural protections, welfare rights and limited rights of standing in criminal proceedings. It the n examines the Charter’s role in this evolution and discusses how the Charter has served as a vehicle by which Parliament and the courts have advanced the procedural, substantive and welfare rights of victims in the criminal justice system. Particular attention is given to the Charter’s influence on the numerous amendments to the Criminal Code over the last 25 years, which are designed to enhance the procedural, welfare and substantive rights of victims in criminal proceedings, as well as the related jurisprudence emanating from the courts. There is also a discussion of the Charter’s influence on the enactment of victims’ bills of rights throughout Canada. The paper the n questions whether the increase in victims’ rights stemming from the enactment of the Charter has translated into increased victim satisfaction or whether the Charter is yet another source of false hopes for victims of crime. In addressing this question, the paper discusses how other outsiders to the criminal process, including the media, have used the Charter to gain standing in criminal proceedings with greater success than victims. Finally, it considers some of the remaining challenges and whether there are other viable measures available to address the lingering dissatisfaction of victims with the criminal justice system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".