Measuring Activism and Restraint: An Alternative Perspective on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Exclusion of Evidence Decisions under Section 24(2) of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the January 2015 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Melanie Janelle Murchison and Richard Jochelson maintain that the Supreme Court of Canada has become more restrained since 9/11 in its exclusion of evidence decisions under section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights. In making this assertion, the authors provide Likert scale scores that attempt to measure different dimensions of activism and restraint. I argue that these measures of activism and restraint are flawed, particularly if one is interested in whether the Supreme Court is giving police more latitude to investigate crime. Using measures of whether evidence was actually excluded or not to assess activism or restraint, I argue that the Supreme Court has become somewhat less prone to exclude evidence over time but that 9/11 is not a convincing explanatory factor either empirically or logically. A Charter maturation effect and sensitivity to critique from law professors would appear to be better explanations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".