Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secret evidence is evidence introduced in closed proceedings to which the individual (and the public) is denied access. In its first Charkaoui decision, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada confronted a number of dilemmas arising from the employment of secret evidence to support the executive’s claims against an individual in security certificate proceedings. It is argued here that, although the Court’s reasons recognized and sought to address major limitations arising from the absence of the individual from closed proceedings, they do not adequately address other weaknesses of adjudication in the face of secret evidence. In particular, the Court’s reasons do not convey sufficient concern for (1) the dependency of the judge and special advocates on the executive for access to the underlying record of the investigation; and (2) the pre-eminence of the executive’s institutionalized expertise in matters of national security confidentiality. This argument is presented by way of an examination of broader limitations of proceedings at which secret evidence is used. The Court’s second Charkaoui decision, in 2008, is examined in a postscript to the paper. It is argued that in that decision the Court acknowledges much more clearly, and take steps to address, adjudicative limitations arising from the court’s dependency on the executive in closed proceedings involving secret evidence that originates in the investigative activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
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 | 0.029 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".