MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288180810

Protecting Equality in the Face of Terror: Ethnic and Racial Profiling and the Charter

2001· article· en· W2288180810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sujit Choudhry

Bibliographic record

VenueBerkley Law Scholarship Repository (University of California, Berkeley) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterProfiling (computer programming)Racial profilingEthnic groupPolitical scienceCriminologyFace (sociological concept)Computer securitySociologyLawComputer scienceRace (biology)Gender studiesSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Racial and ethnic profiling has burst onto the national agenda in the wake of the horrific events of September 11. Long criticized by academics and public interest organizations examining the workings of the criminal justice and immigration systems, profiling has now, as a result of September 11, attained renewed prominence. What is extraordinary about the debate over profiling is the absence, for the most part, of any analysis of whether it would be constitutional. This chapter assess the constitutionality of racial and ethnic profiling under the equality rights provision (s. 15) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBerkley Law Scholarship Repository (University of California, Berkeley)Same topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207