MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038960565 · doi:10.5235/09615768.24.1.1

Blurring the Civil-Criminal Divide for Process Rights: Closed Material Procedures and the Curious Character of Preventive Security Measures

2013· article· en· W2038960565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Chedrawe

Bibliographic record

VenueKing s Law Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)SuspectCertificateContext (archaeology)Law and economicsPolitical scienceLawTerrorismPreventive detentionOrder (exchange)Character (mathematics)BusinessSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKing s Law JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207