Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines how the enactment of a constitutional bill of rights, the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), has changed the Canadian criminal justice system. For example it has required the use of search warrants and right to counsel warnings at the pain of exclusion of evidence; mandated prosecutorial disclosure to the accused and has invalidated broad felony murder offenses and restrictive intoxication and duress defenses. Constitutionalism has affected both the procedure and substance of Canadian criminal law. At the same time, however, parts of the criminal justice system have not been restrained or improved by constitutionalism. They include a lack of universal recording of interrogations, a lack of mandatory identification procedures designed to minimize the risk of mis-identifications, decreased availability of bail, too easy acceptance of guilty pleas, and the increased use of mandatory sentences. The Legislature has often abdicated the law reform responsibilities to the Judiciary under the Charter and the Judiciary generally only responds to the worst abuses of power. Bills of rights enforced by the courts can play an important role in promoting constitutionalism, but they need to be supported by legislative reforms and civil society engagement including a free and critical press.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".