Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early years of the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada pledged to interpret the section 8 right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure restrictively — the Constitution “does not itself confer any powers, even of ‘reasonable’ search and seizure, on … governments” (Hunter v. Southam (1984)). Two decades later, without government advancing statutory authority, the Court recognized, in effect created, an investigative detention power as an integral and necessary aspect of street policing and exception to the arbitrary detention protection of section 9 of the Charter (R. v. Mann (2004)). This police-initiated detention, effectively a warrantless seizure of the person, in turn raises issues of search of the detainee, questioning of the detainee on occasion amounting to a search, and the exercise of incidental powers raising section 8 Charter issues. The investigative detention power, immersed in a matrix of search and seizure issues, but currently analyzed exclusively in section 9 Charter language, might more purposively be measured for compliance with constitutional principles through section 8 analysis with the onus upon government to justify circumstances of warrantless detention/seizure of the pedestrian or driver. With the low visibility of investigative detention, the absence of effective administrative review of its exercise, and its disproportionate impact on the young, the poor and visible minorities, the courts, in the absence of Parliamentary action, must discharge their duty to bring greater clarity, if not accountability, into the process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".