Our Evolving Judicature: Security Certificates, Detention Review, and the Federal Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two issues have been particularly prominent in the contemporary scholarly discussion about civil liberties in Canada: the ever-present debate about the legitimacy of judicial review, with its current "dialogue theory" inflection, and the wisdom and constitutionality of national security measures introduced or made more prominent in light of the current concern with terrorism. In this article, the author draws together these concerns around civil liberties and judicature in an examination of the detention review powers of the Federal Court within the contentious security certificate procedure in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the author concludes that the Federal Court has the power to review the automatic detention of foreign nationals pursuant to security certificates. Most commentators and our courts have misassessed the powers of the Federal Court and this misdiagnosis is attributable, in part, to a myopic view of judicature that has failed to recognize certain profound shifts in the structure of Canadian judicature.
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 | 0.043 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".