Gone But Not Forgotten: Should Judges Be Allowed to Remedy by Re-sentencing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le rapport de la Commission d'enqueöte sur certains �v�nements survenus � la Prison pour femmes de Kingston (1996), la juge Arbour a formul� 14 recommandations g�n�rales. Or, meöme si les instances ont accept� et mis en oeuvre plusieurs d'entre elles, une recommandation en particulier n'a toujours pas �t� rejet�e ou accept�e de facüon d�finitive. L'auteure de ce commentaire passe en revue les raisons qui ont motiv� cette recommandation (n� 8), analyse les facteurs qui expliqueraient l'inaction des instances � cet �gard et essaie d'envisager le sort �ventuel de la recommandation. Justice Louise Arbour made 14 omnibus recommendations in her 1996 Report on Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. While many of the recommendations have been accepted and implemented, one in particular has been neither conclusively rejected nor accepted. This commentary will review the reasons for Recommendation 8, explore possible reasons for the lack of uptake, and comment on what its future might now be.
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 | 0.030 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| 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".