Bibliographic record
Abstract
The late Antonio Lamer took the lead, under the Charter, in constitutionalizing the substantive criminal law. In that regard, the Motor Vehicle Reference may be his most important Charter decision: the re, he proposed an institutional the ory of substantive review for section 7 — a guarantee which, it is agreed, was intended only to have procedural content. Not only was Justice Lamer’s the ory of review unsound, the section 7 fault jurisprudence which followed the MVR was no more than a modest success. Yet analysis shows how the section 7 cases are linked to section 12 — and its prohibition on cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — by a shared concern for proportionality in the relationship between fault and punishment. After undertaking a critique of the section 7 jurisprudence, this paper proposes that a substantive interpretation of that guarantee be abandoned, and suggests that questions of proportionality — whether arising from a fault deficit or the nature of the punishment — be addressed by section 12.
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 | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".