Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores ways in which perspectives in Canada on the administration of justice have shifted after September 11, 2001, in criminal and administrative law. The introductory chapter sets out the general context of my thesis, including a discussion of the development of due process and constitutional rights, and a brief comparison between American, British and Canadian legislative responses to 9 /11. Chapter 2 concerns the context, in which the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act (2001) was drafted, the government's understanding of its purpose and function, and critical reception of the Act. In the face of considerable skepticism, the government (and a minority of sympathetic figures) insisted upon the consistency of the Act with the Canadian Charier of Rights and Freedoms, and argued that it struck a balance between individual and communal interests in a new yet appropriate fashion. Chapter 3 focuses on judicial responses to anti-terror legislation, including provisions dealings with 'security certificate' detentions; the deportation of terrorist suspects to face the risk of torture; and provisions of the Anti- terrorism Act. The cases suggest a general tendency to justify or rationalize departures, from traditional notions of due process, constitutionalism and 'fundamental justice' (in section 7 of the Charter) as appropriate, balanced, and normal. Chapter 4 addresses the problem of accountability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in light of the post-9/11 amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that significantly expand the scope of state secrecy and privilege in 'national security' matters.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".