Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Rourke, Alan Mewett expressed concern that the inability of Canadian courts to stay proceedings might produce a situation in which accused person - whether guilty or not - is seen by the majority of people to be subject to unfair and abusive treatment, to methods that bring the very administration of justice itself into disrepute .... Much water has passed under the bridge since that time and Professor Mewett's concerns may at first appear to be dated. Courts can now issue stays in the clearest of cases when continued proceedings would aggravate a Charter violation or an abuse of process and when no less drastic alternative remedy can respond to the prejudice suffered by the accused or the justice system. Nevertheless, I will argue in this article that Professor Mewett's concerns are still quite valid with respect to abuses which threaten to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but may not prevent a fair trial.
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 | 0.036 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".