MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260082425

Ten Ways to Improve Canadian Anti-Terrorism Law

2008· article· en· W2260082425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismLawPolitical scienceConvictionCriminal lawNational securityImmigration lawState (computer science)Immigration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I propose ten specific ways in which concrete improvements can be made to Canadian anti-terrorism law and the national security components of Canadian immigration law. Although Canada's criminal anti-terrorism law is more restrained than that of some other countries, including recent laws and proposals in the United Kingdom, this should not be taken as a sign that there is no room for improvement. It should also not be assumed that improvements to the law will increase rights and freedoms at the expense of security. Indeed some of the improvements to Canadian law that are suggested below could assist the state in focusing on the most serious threats to our security. Some could also help prevent the wrongful conviction or detention of those who are not terrorists (which may allow the guilty to go free) while ensuring that Canada's response to terrorism is properly focused and proportionate.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207