Constitutional Recognition of the Role of the Attoney General in Criminal Prosecutions: Krieger V. Law Society of Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the release of Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 1 commentary on the case focused on the fact that Crown Attorneys, like all other lawyers, could be subject to discipline by provincial Law Societies in the event of professional misconduct. 2 While it is true that Krieger clearly established that provinces had the constitutional power to regulate Crown Attorneys to some extent, what is most interesting about the case, from a constitutional law perspective, is its examination of how Crown Attorneys, as agents of the Attorney General, are unlike any other lawyers.Although hinted at in earlier decisions, 3 in Krieger, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized, for the first time, that the independence of the Attorney General in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is a principle of Canadian constitutional law.Prior to Krieger various commentators noted that the office of the Attorney General has constitutional dimensions.Professor John Ll.Edwards, an academic expert in the area, wrote that the Attorney General has "a privileged Lori Sterling is the Director of the Crown Law Office -Civil, Ontario
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".