Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Charter has had an important effect on criminal justice and security policymaking that was not anticipated in 1982. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a tyranny of the Charter, in which security policy is dictated by the Charter. The Charter is most often applied against the actions of unelected police and prosecutors as opposed to elected legislatures. Even when laws are struck down under the Charter, the result has often been vigorous dialogue between courts and legislatures. There is no incompatibility between strong courts enforcing the Charter and strong governments implementing proactive criminal justice and security policies. The Charter should only smooth the sharp edges of broader criminal justice and security policy. Canada is doing a better job in developing a coherent and proactive security policy than a coherent criminal justice policy, but in both cases governments should resist the temptation of limiting their vision to attempting to predict or react to the Charter decisions of the courts.
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 | 0.060 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".