Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bottom line for those who raise Charter issues when faced with criminal charges is the ability to obtain an effective remedy. The Canadian Bill of Rights was inadequate in part because it did not contain explicit enforcement provisions and s. 24 of the Charter is an attempt to prevent the recurrence of cases such as Hogan in which right was infringed but no remedy provided. Section 24 departs from broader visions of constitutional standing and imposes the stricter requirement that people who apply to obtain an appropriate and just remedy must have had their rights violated. The enforcement of the new rights and freedoms in the Charter is reconciled with existing legal structures by requiring that applications for remedies under s. 24(1) be made to a court of competent jurisdiction. By giving courts the discretion to provide the remedy they consider appropriate and just in the circumstances, the Charter provides judges with only vague guidelines for making remedial choices. The courts have felt comfortable in dealing with s. 24 remedies such as exclusion of evidence, return of evidence, stays of proceedings, reductions of sentence, costs, and the granting of interlocutory appeals. The temptation to retain common law approaches is most compelling in such familiar areas. In the criminal law context, concerns about crime control, an efficient trial process, control of the police and public outrage at the accused going free will often seem compelling. If these considerations override the need to vindicate rights and provide full compensation for their violation, the Charter's promise of legal rights as crucial restraint on state activity will be hollow and illusionary. People who are accused of crimes and come to courts for Charter remedies are among the least popular or powerful of those who may be subjected to Charter violations; care must be taken that they are not denied remedies for unarticulated or unjustified reasons.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.015 |
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".