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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
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