MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339012338

Separating Minimal Impairment from Balancing: A Comment on R. v. Sharpe (B.C.C.A.

2000· article· en· W2339012338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Davidov

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProportionality (law)LegislationArgument (complex analysis)LawBalancing testConstitutional lawLaw and economicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyMathematical economicsEconomicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the center of Canadian constitutional law -- as in many other countries -- is the principle of proportionality. It is understood to include three sub-tests: rational relation, minimum impairment and balancing between the deleterious and the salutary effects of the law. In practice the courts concentrate on the second test. It is argued that in fact they often perform balancing when applying the minimal impairment test, but refrain from explicitly acknowledging it, because it appears less legitimate. The constitutional challenge in R. v. Sharpe to the child pornography legislation is used as an example to illustrate the argument.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.029
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.1050.082
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207