Anti-terrorism and rights in Canada: Policy discourse on the delicate balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'A. examine l'extension et la politisation croissante des services secrets et de securite canadiens et leur role dans l'adoption d'une legislation securitaire apres les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 aux Etats-Unis. Il considere notamment un cadre dans lequel des organisations de securite peuvent equilibrer leur besoin de transparence en contexte democratique et propose des mecanismes clairs de responsabilite publique. Il examine les debats autour de l'opposition droits vs. securite, d'abord dans les annees 1980, lorsque le Canadian Security Intelligence Service fut cree, ensuite dans le contexte de l'anti-terrorisme et de la question de l'ordre et de la securite publics apres le 11 septembre. Il tente de determiner s'il y eu une alteration dans l'obligation du gouvernement de proteger les Canadiens contre le terrorisme, ou si la motivation du gouvernement fut de contenir la dissidence et de faire taire l'opposition a l'accueil du sommet du G8 en juin 2002. En conclusion, il suggere que malgre les similitudes dans les debats des annees 1980 et 2001-2002, le gouvernement canadien a utilise la preoccupation de la lutte contre le terrorisme pour deplacer l'equilibre des droits vers la securite
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".