Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parliament should enact a clear and comprehensive statement of the rules of evidence.The present case-by-case method of developing the law of evidence contributes to confusion, to lengthy trials, and to delayed justice.Canada was close to enacting such a statement in the 1980s, but the effort was abandoned and has for the most part been forgotten.It is time to renew efforts to produce a legislative statement of the rules of evidence.This paper suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada could play a role in developing the rules outside its normal judicial process, perhaps using the auspices of the Canadian Judicial Council or the National Judicial Institute.This is the technique now successfully used by the Supreme Court of the United States to develop the Federal Rules of Evidence, which Congress accepts unless there is a negative vote to reject the changes. Le Parlement devrait dicter un nonc clair et complet des rgles de preuve. La mthode actuelle d'laboration des rgles de preuve au cas par cas engendre la confusion, les procs interminables et des retards dans le processus judiciaire. LeCanada a presque dict un tel nonc dans les annes 80, mais l'initiative a depuis t abandonne et oublie par plusieurs.Il est temps de ressusciter les travaux pour produire un nonc lgislatif concernant les rgles de preuve.Dans cet article, l'auteur suggre que la Cour suprme du Canada joue un rle dans le processus d'laboration de ces rgles en dehors de son cadre judiciaire normal, peut-tre mme sous les auspices du Conseil canadien de la magistrature ou de l'Institut national de la magistrature.Cette technique est utilise avec succs par la Cour suprme des tats-Unis pour l'laboration de leurs rgles fdrales de preuve, que le Congrs accepte moins qu'il n'y ait un vote ngatif visant rejeter les modifications.
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 | 0.154 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.070 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".