The Bounds of the Permissible: Using “Cultural Evidence” in Civil Jury Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Au centre de toute considération de la «culture dans le domaine du droit» est la question si, et dans quelle mesure, la culture est justiciable, contestable et peut être introduite comme preuve devant les cours. Des experts des disciplines des sciences sociales et humaines sont souvent appelés à présenter ce genre de preuve. Alors que la Cour suprême du Canada a développé des critères pour évaluer la preuve par expertise, ceux-ci sont plus difficiles à appliquer lorsque la preuve présentée est de nature ‘culturelle’ plutôt que scientifique classique. Le souci de la probité de la preuve par expertise est accru dans les cas où un jury doit évaluer les faits. Ce texte commente une décision récente de la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle-Écosse, en matière de diffamation liée à des propos caractérisant un comportement de raciste, l'utilisant comme plate-forme pour discuter des enjeux particuliers soulevés par la preuve culturelle dans le domaine civil.
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 | 0.099 | 0.498 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".