MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2496160223 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107416024.008

Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association <i>v</i>. Chief of Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces and Others

2014· article· en· W2496160223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfghanLawHuman rightsPolitical scienceTortureCharterJurisdictionInternational lawUnited Nations Charter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

311 Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether having extraterritorial application — Whether Charter applying during armed conflict in Afghanistan to detention of non-Canadians by Canadian Forces or their transfer to Afghan authorities — Section 32(1) of Charter — Interpretation of jurisdictional reach by courts — Judgments of Supreme Court — Hape — Khadr (No 1) — Whether Canada having effective control of detention facilities — Whether Afghanistan consenting to application or enforcement of Canadian law — Afghan compact — Applicable law — International law — International humanitarian law — Whether Charter applying if detainees at substantial risk of torture if transferred to Afghan authorities — General rule against extraterritorial application of Charter — Whether fundamental human rights exception to general rule — Concepts of territoriality and comity — Relevance of all circumstances Human rights — Freedom from torture — Non-Canadian nationals detained by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan during armed conflict — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether applicable if detainees at substantial risk of torture if transferred to Afghan authorities — General rule against extraterritorial application of Charter — Whether fundamental human rights exception to general rule — Whether detainees having rights under Charter — Applicable law — International humanitarian law — Afghan Constitution Territory — Territorial sovereignty — Armed conflict in Afghanistan — Detention of non-Canadians by Canadian Forces — Whether Canadian Forces’ authorities having effective control of detention facilities — Banković — Canadian Forces in Afghanistan at request of Afghan Government — Whether Afghanistan consenting to extension of Canadian law over non-Canadian nationals — Afghan Compact — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms having extraterritorial application War and armed conflict — Armed conflict in Afghanistan — Detention of non-Canadians by Canadian Forces — Law applicable to detainees — Whether Afghanistan consenting to extension of Canadian law over non-Canadian nationals — Whether Canadian Forces occupying force — Whether Canadian Forces’ authorities having effective control of detention facilities — Banković — Afghan Compact — International humanitarian law — Applicability of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — The law of Canada

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2950.090

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ReportsSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207