Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part I of this paper documents the unscrupulous politics of the majority Harper Government in enacting Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, in the name of victims’ rights. The Government ignored the legion of advice from opposition members and from lawyers, correctional officials, criminologists and judges within and outside Canada that resort to greater use of imprisonment, and minimum penalties in particular, will be costly and will not make Canadians safer. Opponents also predicted that there would be a disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. In Part II it is argued that entrenched Charter standards as asserted by our courts have often produced a better balance between the rights of accused and the need to protect the public. Four examples are considered. It is suggested that our judiciary has put in place salutary principles of fundamental justice established under section 7, the powerful stay remedy for trials with unreasonable delay under section 11(b), carefully limited standards for policing and the now robust remedy of exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights under section 24(2). Part III concludes with five suggestions for change to better protect the rights of accused: (1) section 24(2) approaches to discoverability and good faith; (2) care should be taken not to create enforceable Charter rights for victims, with special reference to current imbalances in sexual assault trials; (3) rights to counsel should not be dependent on whether they are asserted; (4) rights of accused allowing for coercive interrogations should be reconsidered and strengthened; and (5) the cruel and unusual protection under section 12 should be revitalized to strike down disproportionate minimum penalties.
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 | 0.032 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".