Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals enjoy privacy in their person, in their personal spaces, and also in their biographical core of personal information. A successful claim for the exclusion of evidence on the basis of an infringement of section 8 of the Charter requires that three questions be answered in the affirmative: (1) is there a reasonable expectation of privacy? (2) has there been an unreasonable interference with that expectation? and (3) does the infringement warrant exclusion of the evidence? Turning to the first question, the determination of the issue ultimately rests on whether our societal values are such that we are prepared to acknowledge that the accused had a valid and enforceable expectation of privacy. Early on in the jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada answered this question by resorting to a very general and normative form of analysis, largely disconnected from the actual facts of the case, leading to results that were unlikely to conform with societal expectations of what is just. Subsequently, the Court moved towards an approach that remained normative, but firmly rooted in the unique circumstances of the particular case. In deciding whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in information, the enquiry should be guided by the extent to which the information in question promotes the values protected by section 8, the dignity and autonomy of the individual. Not all information warrants protection, particularly that which actually undermines the values promoted by section 8. Turning to the second question, the Supreme Court has recently introduced confusion into the law concerning searches in the regulatory context. Searches in the regulatory context were typically not required to comply with the requirement of prior judicial authorization, if they were necessary to ensure compliance with the regulatory framework. However, in the recent decision of R. v. Jarvis, a tax prosecution case, the Court has indicated that investigators must abandon the use of their audit and inspection powers, once their purpose shifts to the determination of penal, as opposed to tax, liability. Jarvis raises many questions and investigators will need to be very careful before relying on a warrantless power of inspection to build a case for prosecution purposes. The decision whether to exclude evidence rests on a balancing of the state’s interest in law enforcement against the privacy rights of the accused. Privacy rights are often subordinated to the state interest in law enforcement, as the Charter is not the only
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 | 0.035 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".