The "Faint Hope Clause" (C.C.C. s.745.6): The judicial review process with special reference to the 1996 amendments.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines data provided by Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board on applications for early parole under s.745.6 (the "Faint Hope Clause") both before and after the 1996 amendment to the clause. The data come from a Correctional Service Canada database containing comprehensive information about 1,325 individual case files of inmates convicted of first and second degree murder between 1961 and 2000. The data analyzed consist of statistics on counts of murder, inmates' current status as well as information on application and success rates. Similar data from the National Parole Board provide more detailed information on inmates' parole status. Overall, 82% of applicants have positive outcomes at judicial review. While there are substantially more applications from inmates convicted of first-degree murder (82%) than from inmates convicted of second-degree murder (18%), the second-degree murder applications have a higher success rate (89% vs. 80%). At the same time, applicants convicted of first-degree murder are granted greater reductions in parole ineligibility than are those with second-degree murder convictions. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".