Blurring the Civil-Criminal Divide for Process Rights: Closed Material Procedures and the Curious Character of Preventive Security Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Closed material procedures (CMPs) are defined by a decision-maker's entitlement to render a decision using material that has not been disclosed to one of the parties on the basis that such disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The rise of CMPs in the security context has been the subject of intense debate in both Canada and the United Kingdom, where the Canadian security certificate and its United Kingdom equivalents (the now-defunct control order and the terrorism prevention and investigation measure) are preventive security measures. Some have criticised the placement of these preventive security measures within the civil domain, arguing that their consequences - namely a deprivation of life, liberty and security rights - are of a criminal character and thus more stringent processes should apply to ensure that rights are safeguarded. Limited disclosure and the use of secret evidence, in particular, have been criticised for violating the suspect's right to know the case.
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 | 0.105 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.147 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".