MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1853419240

A New Conception of Wilful Blindness: The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in R. v. Sansregret

2000· article· en· W1853419240 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark McElman

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie journal of legal studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMens reaDoctrineJurisprudenceSupreme courtLawBlindnessFocus (optics)SociologyPolitical scienceCriminal lawCriminologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will proceed in four parts. Part I will consist of a brief summary of current jurisprudence surrounding the doctrine of mens rea, focusing on the debate concerning whether the imposition of criminal liability requires a subjective or objective model of fault. Part II will present the basic epistemological ideals that will form the basis of subsequent analysis. Part III will bring into focus the epistemological elements of the offence of sexual assault. Part IV will demonstrate how a new doctrine of wilful blindness might be employed by the courts, in cases of sexual assault.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.042
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalhousie journal of legal studiesSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207