Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to be “secure against unreasonable search or seizure” in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies only where the Charter applicant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or the information obtained. The Supreme Court of Canada’s methodology for deciding whether an applicant has such a reasonable expectation appears well settled. The Court asks first whether the applicant had a subjective expectation of privacy, and second whether, in light of a long list of factors, that expectation was reasonable. But the Court’s decisions reveal at least two potentially incompatible ways of orienting the factors. According to what I call the “risk approach”, the focus of the inquiry is on the security of the place searched or the information obtained against the world at large; according to what I call the “surveillance approach”, the question is whether a reasonable person would anticipate that an agent of the state would be able to intrude into the place searched, or obtain the information in question, without legal authorization. I show how the court’s uncertainty about the appropriate approach helps to explain the complex split decision in R. v. Gomboc, and I argue that the surveillance approach provides better protection for the privacy interests that underlie the section 8 guarantee.
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 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".