Of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: A Blueprint for a Constitutional Challenge to the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis scrutinizes the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act [“SoCIS”] through the lens of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Drawing an epistemological link between search and seizure principles and the domestic exchange of information, I argue that the SoCIS falls short of the safeguards demanded by section 8. By permitting the unremitting disclosure of information, the regime casts too wide a net, and risks the exchange of information about innocent Canadians – not unlike the cases of Maher Arar, Ahmad Elmaati, Muayyed Nureddin, and Abdullaah Almalki. When measured against jurisprudential standards and lessons from commissions of inquiry involving porous information-sharing dynamics, the absence of oversight or accountability in the SoCIS proves disproportionate to its overarching objective. Thus, it cannot be saved by section 1 of the Charter, and should be declared of no force or effect.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".