Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of the Charter coincided with the Supreme Court of Canada’s development of a principled approach to the common law of evidence. Over the past 25 years, the Court has forged an important connection between these two changes in the law. When the Court has dealt with constitutional challenges to statutory changes to the common law of evidence, it has tended to reject the claim that the statute is unconstitutional, but has also tended to vindicate the values underlying the common law rule at issue by interpreting the statutory rule to preserve the trial judge’s discretionary power to exclude evidence on the ground of excessive prejudice. In this way, the Court has effectively constitutionalized the common law discretion to exclude evidence where its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The development of this link between the Charter and the common law of evidence has not gone so far as recognizing a constitutional right to the exclusion of patently unreliable evidence. However, closer attention to the general principle that excessively prejudicial evidence is inadmissible could lead to a reversal of some recent undesirable developments in the common law confessions rule.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".