Bibliographic record
Abstract
In R. v. K.R.J. (“K.R.J.”) the Supreme Court acknowledged what is intuitive but was not explicit in section 11(i) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) jurisprudence: determining if something is punishment requires consideration of the impact it has on an offender. The critical question in K.R.J. was whether a section 161 Criminal Code (“Code”) prohibition order constituted punishment within the meaning of section 11(i) of the Charter. Section 161(1) orders restrict the liberty interest of convicted sexual offenders who pose an ongoing risk of committing a sexual offence against a child. These orders restrict the ability of offenders to attend places where children are present, or have unsupervised contact with children, in person or through electronic means. The provisions are intended to protect children from abuse by repeat offenders. In K.R.J. the Supreme Court of Canada found the consequences of a sanction on the offender need to be considered in order to give a purposive interpretation to the Charter protection when determining whether a sanction amounts to punishment. In other words, it is not just the reason why a sanction is imposed that matters, its impact is also important. Both purpose and effect must be considered. This modified the previous test. In carving out “a clearer and more meaningful role for the consideration of the impact of a sanction” the court continued the trend towards greater acknowledgement of the consequences on an offender. The reformulation of the test invites further litigation and has the potential to affect all manner of ancillary orders. For example, while orders for forfeiture or fine in lieu of forfeiture for proceeds of crime are not likely to be affected, forfeiture of offence-related property may now qualify as punishment.
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".