Another One Bites the Dust! Bolstered Law Offices and a Blocked Taxman in Chambre des notaires du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec the Supreme Court once again vigorously defended a lawyer’s obligation to preserve confidential client information. The Court’s recent interest in solicitor-client privilege is significant. Since 2006, the Court has heard at least 10 cases dealing with solicitor-client privilege, about the same number it heard during that period related to each of sections 15 and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”). The Court’s language in these cases reinforces the perception that the Court views solicitor-client privilege as extraordinarily important. Among other things, the Court has described solicitor-client privilege as “one of the most ancient and powerful privileges known to our jurisprudence” and as having an “importance…to our justice system [that] cannot be overstated.”
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".