LETTER FROM OTTAWA: CANADA'S DETAINEE SCANDAL IN AFGHANISTAN BEFORE THE COURTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, Canada’s government became embroiled in an international scandal when journalists reported that 30 persons detained by the Canadian Forces and transferred to Afghan custody were tortured. Leaked government documents prove that Canadian diplomats were aware that persons in Afghan custody could be tortured, at the dates when the Canadian Forces authorized the detainee transfers to occur. A judicial review has been launched in the Federal Court alleging that the Canadian Forces are violating the constitution, specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in transferring detainees to known torturers. This paper discusses both the facts underpinning Canada’s detainee scandal, and the Canadian jurisprudence which will be decisive as the matter heads to the courts for resolution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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".