MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552530507 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1470

The Nullification of Section 718.2(e): Aggravating Aboriginal Over-Representation in Canadian Prisons

2001· article· en· W2552530507 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Renée C. Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)ParliamentSupreme courtNullificationLawRemedial educationRepresentation (politics)Political scienceSociologyCriminologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the disproportionate incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders in Canadian prisons and the effectiveness of Parliament's attempts at alleviating this problem through the enactment of section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This article focuses primarily on two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions-R. v. Gladue and R. v. Wells. It is argued that the Court's narrow view of systemic factors, the Imitation it places on section 718.2(e) through its discussion of serious offences, as well as a number of practical problems inherent in the framework provided by the Court, strip the provision of its remedial intent. The article then argues that the Courts failure to recognize the distinct purposes of section 718 2(e) and the original sentencing provisions found in section 742.1, will aggravate the problem of Aboriginal over-representation in Canadian penal institutions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207