MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245658410 · doi:10.1017/s0069005800010110

Does the<i>Charter</i>Float? The Application of the<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canada’s Policing of High Seas Fisheries</i>

2011· article· en· W2245658410 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Drew Tyler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMaritime Security and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceState (computer science)International watersLawSupreme courtFisheryGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The majority judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hape held that, in general, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to Canadian government agents when they are acting in foreign state territory. This comment considers whether this rule should extend to high seas interdictions, by Canadian agents, of foreign-flagged vessels. In particular, it considers the potential application of the Charter to Canada’s policing of high seas fisheries. It concludes that the legal regimes governing high seas fisheries are sufficiently distinct from those pertaining to state territory, that the rule in Hape should not apply to high seas interdictions, and that the Charter should therefore apply to Canada’s high seas fisheries policing activities .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit internationalSame topicMaritime Security and HistoryFrench-language works237,207