Glosa do wyroku Sądu Sprawiedliwości Ontario w sprawie R. v. Wagner z dnia 12.06.2014 (R. v. Wagner, 2015 ONCJ 66)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper deals with the judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice of 12 June 2014 in the case R. v. Wagner 2015 ONCJ 66. The reviewed judgment refers to legal frameworks of anti-abortion protests in the Canadian legal order. The Court found pro-life activist Mary Wagner guilty of breach of probation orders – which prohibited her from being on the premises of any abortion provider in Ontario – and of mischief interfering with private property. She gained entry to abortion clinic in Toronto and sought to intercede with various clinic patients by offering them roses and pro-life brochures in an effort to have them reconsider their interest in having an abortion. The Court held that neither law of self-defence (exactly defence of others) nor the law of necessity could insulate Wagner’s conduct from criminal liability. The Court also rejected the contention that a foetus is a “human being” under the law. It said that ascribing personhood to a foetus in law is a fundamentally normative task which falls outside the concerns of scientific classification. This strong normativism position led the Court to the conclusion that Wagner’s protest in the clinic was not an attempt to protect the “everyone’s” right to life under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. Finally the Court assumed that neither Principle of the “Rule of Law” nor principle of the “Supremacy of God” – both expressed in the preamble to the Charter – convalidated the defendant’s acts. In the author’s view the reviewed judgment is consistent with the letter of the law in the sense of legal positivism. It is debatable whether the given judgment is righteousness, depending on which theory of justice is chosen to rely on. However the court’s opinion belies the requirements of equity. Imprisonment for peaceful pro-life protest is serious infringement of core values of liberal and democratic state.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.006 |
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".