“Windows to our Inner Private Lives”: Cell Phones, Informational Privacy and the Power to Search Incident to Arrest in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’interesse au traitement par les tribunaux canadiens de la problematique relative au pouvoir de fouille d’un telephone portable d’une personne mise en etat d’arrestation. Dans R. c. Fearon, la Cour supreme a decide que, sous certaines conditions, ces fouilles tombaient dans les limites du pouvoir de common law de fouille accessoire a une arrestation. Dans cet article, nous defendons l’idee selon laquelle la Cour a fait fausse route, et qu’elle aurait du formuler une regle claire interdisant toute forme de fouille accessoire a une arrestation d’un telephone cellulaire, a l’exception des cas ou il existe des circonstances exceptionnelles qui justifieraient une telle fouille. Notre argument se decline en quatre temps : (1) d’abord, cette regle previendrait les fouilles abu-sives de telephone portable (2) ensuite, elle respecterait les meilleures pratiques en matiere d’extraction de donnees et, par consequent, elle permettrait une meilleure protection des elements de preuve potentiellement emmagasines dans l’appareil (3) elle aurait un impact minimal sur le niveau d’efficacite des activites des services de police et (4) finalement, elle permettrait la mise en place d’un equilibre optimal entre les interets de l’Etat et le droit a la vie privee.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".