Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is clear that a Canadian judge can change a ruling or decision. For instance, it is well settled in Canada that a trial judge can reconsider a verdict of guilty in a criminal trial based upon the introduction of “fresh evidence”1 before sentence is imposed 2 and that an appellate court can subsequently decide an issue it had failed to address in its initial judgment 3 or amend “an order already passed and perfected.”4 In R. v. J.A., after convicting the accused of a sexual offence, the trial judge received a letter from the victim’s grandfather indicating that the victim had told him that there were more sexual incidents involved than he had described in his testimony.5 The trial judge refused to reopen the trial and vacate his verdict or to declare a mistrial. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that “a trial judge who has made a finding of guilt on disputed facts has the authority to vacate the adjudication of guilt at any time before the imposition of sentence or other final disposition, but such authority should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and in the clearest of cases.”6 The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge’s “reasons on the mistrial motion confirm that he appreciated and correctly applied the principles governing mistrial applications and the Palmer criteria for the admission of fresh evidence in the context of the whole of the evidence led at trial.” It concluded, “His discretionary decision to dismiss the mistrial motion is neither clearly wrong nor based on an erroneous principle. I therefore would reject this ground of appeal.”7
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".