MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943113700 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1348

A Withering Instrumentality: The Negative Implications of R. v. Safarzadeh-Markali and other Recent Section 7 Jurisprudence

2017· article· en· W2943113700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Menchynski, Jill R. Presser

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtCharterLawPolitical scienceParliamentLegislationJurisprudenceLegislaturePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court of Canada has faced a perennial problem, particularly since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”), in its efforts to protect the constitutional rights of individuals without unduly interfering in the domain of the legislative branch of government. A key question has been — to what extent should the courts use section 7 of the Charter to review or police Parliament’s decisions regarding laws that engage an individual’s liberty interests? Indeed, this is an issue brought to the fore in many of the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decisions that have struck down criminal legislation. Is the Supreme Court being too interventionist in its approach, or is the Court rightly putting a check on repressive legislation?

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.035
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0120.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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