Beyond Finality: R v Hart and the Ghosts of Convictions Past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v Hart, in which it confronted the controversial police investigatory tactic knows as a "Mr.Big Operation" (MBO).MBOs are undercover operations wherein police officers assume the role of organized crime figures seeking to recruit the accused into their organization.Using inducements, threats, and/or an atmosphere of oppression, the officers elicit incriminating statements from the accused, which prior to Hart were admissible in subsequent criminal prosecutions.In Hart, however, the Supreme Court recognized the risk of false confessions as a result of the investigatory tactics used, and consequently, the risk of a wrongful conviction.The Court formulated a new common law rule: that an MBO-generated confession will be presumptively inadmissible unless the Crown can demonstrate that the probative value of the statement outweighs its prejudicial effect.The new rule is a fundamental reversal from the way MBO-generated evidence has previously been considered.In this article, we argue that while *
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".