New Criminal Code Procedure for Production of Student Records in Sexual Assault Cases.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C A N A D A Before Mills Accused persons defending charges of sexual assault and related offences sometimes seek to review confidential records, including student records, pertaining to the complainant or witnesses. The production of confidential records is controversial as it pits the right of the accused to make a full defence against the rights of privacy of complainants and witnesses. In a 1995 decision, R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) set out a procedure that became known as an “O’Connor application”, establishing a process by which trial courts in Canada were to determine whether a confidential record should be produced in the circumstances of a particular case. In 1997, Parliament amended the Criminal Code, replacing the O’Connor application with a new procedure (ss. 278.1 to 278.91). The new procedure makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain confidential records, giving much less weight to the accused’s right to make a full defence than the SCC had in O’Connor. The constitutionality of the new procedure was challenged within a few weeks of the amendments being proclaimed into force. The November 1999 SCC decision in R. v. Mills (1999), 180 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (SCC) upheld the constitutionality of the new procedure set out in the Criminal Code.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it