MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294065045

Rethinking the Bona Fides of Entrapment

2011· article· en· W2294065045 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M Tanovich

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidesEntrapmentCharterPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyPhilosophyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The law of entrapment has received very little scholarly attention in Canada despite the fact that its reliance on branding neighbourhoods and other locations as high crime areas and its low visibility encounters serve to engender discriminatory policing. This article relies on recent Charter decisions in other contexts to argue that an anti-racist lens is now required as part of the assessment of the bona fides of the investigation branch of the entrapment test from R v Barnes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.084
Scholarly communication0.0200.018
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0160.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLaw, Rights, and FreedomsFrench-language works237,207