The Law Working Itself Pure? The Canadian Experience with Exceptional Courts and Guantánamo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CANADA HAS NOT BEEN IMMUNE FROM THE USE OF exceptional courts or the legal and political controversies that often accompany their use. Canada did not use its newly enacted antiterrorism law to prosecute suspected terrorists in the ordinary criminal courts for three years after 9/11. Instead, it relied on administrative detention under immigration law that had not been used extensively before 9/11. Security certificates issued under immigration law are subject to review by specially designated judges of the Federal Court. Although the Federal Court is a regularly constituted superior court that hears civil and administrative claims against the federal government, it was an exceptional court in the context of security certificates because of the use of specially designated judges who examine secret evidence submitted by the government, but never disclosed to the detainee. The justifications offered for such use of the Federal Court are the familiar ones for exceptional courts: the need for secrecy; the expertise of specially selected judges trained in security matters; and the difficulties of criminal prosecutions in open court before juries. Security certificates have resulted in long-term and indefinite detention and have been politically and legally controversial. Indeed, some have criticized them as a milder Canadian version of Guantánamo. In any event, security certificates have been the subject of successful challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter the Charter). In this way, the Canadian security certificate cases provide a case study of exceptional courts that have been successfully resisted and reformed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".