Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the issue of compelled defence disclosure in light of the framework for discovery set out in Stinchcombe v. The Queen and s. 7 of the Charter. The author contends that the introduction of compelled defence disclosure into the Canadian criminal law system would be inappropriate given the current s. 7 Charter analysis. The principles of Crown disclosure gleaned from Stinchcombe and current rationales for imposing obligations of disclosure on the defence are reviewed. The impact upon the accused's right to silence, right to make full answer and defence, and the right against self-incrimination, is used to illustrate the inadequacies of the current justifications for compelled defence disclosure. The author concludes that while incremental expansion of particular existing defence obligations to disclose may be appropriate, it appears that the constitutional barriers to implementing full reciprocal defence disclosure in Canada are complete and just.
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 | 0.057 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| 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".