MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898893873 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1355

The Hours are Long: Unreasonable Delay After Jordan

2017· article· en· W2898893873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Palma Paciocco

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximCharterEconomic JusticeSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In its most recent case on the section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time, R. v. Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada invoked “the familiar maxim: ‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’” Marshall McLuhan once ventured a characteristically maverick rejoinder to that particular old chestnut: “Whereas convictions depend on speedups, justice requires delay.” In reality, both aphorisms hit upon important truths about our criminal justice system. Taken together, they underscore the importance of carefully calibrating the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207