MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1722558755 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1279

The Death of Oakes: Time for a Rights-Specific Approach?

2013· article· en· W1722558755 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher D. Bredt, Heather K. Pessione

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSupreme courtSection (typography)JurisprudenceSet (abstract data type)LawTest (biology)Political scienceLaw and economicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the authors develop their the sis that the time has come to abandon the universal framework for the application of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms set out in R. v. Oakes. The paper describes how the Oakes test has been eroded, diluted and, in some cases, abandoned. The authors review the history of the application of the Oakes test, as well as recent developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence. The paper concludes that the Supreme Court’s struggles with Oakes are inherent in any attempt to apply a universal approach to section 1 analysis, and conclude that a rights-specific approach to section 1 balancing should be adopted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207