Bibliographic record
Abstract
Location or surveillance post privilege is designed to protect surveillance operations where knowledge of the locations, techniques and equipment used would educate criminals about how to avoid future surveillance; educate third parties about how to conduct illegal surveillance; frustrate future similar surveillance activities; and pose risks to individuals conducting surveillance or those allowing the use of their facilities.1 While the privilege is based on two centuries of jurisprudence regarding the protection of informants, it is a relatively new application of the rules regarding informants. The privilege is, however, qualified and not absolute. As a result trial courts have a great deal of discretion in determining the scope of the privilege – balancing the accused’s right to full disclosure and to adequately cross-examine and confront witnesses with the public interest in maintaining secrecy and effective law enforcement. While the ultimate focus is on Canadian law, the author starts with English precedent through New Zealand, Australia, and the United States before ending with Canada. As the rule is fairly consistent across the Commonwealth with Canadian courts adopting US precedent which in turn was built on earlier English precedent, the law in Canada can be seen as an evolution of the practices elsewhere
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".