MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017331670 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1389

Bad Ad(Vice): On the Supreme Court’s Approach to Press Freedom, Source Protection and State Interests in R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc.

2020· article· en· W3017331670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Safayeni, Mannu Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVice presidentSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)State (computer science)IslamTerrorismFreedom of the pressHistoryBusinessPoliticsComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does a journalist have to turn over records of online chats with a non-confidential source to the state, so that those records can be used to prosecute the source? That is the question at the heart of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc. In Vice, the source allegedly left Canada to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); the journalist contacted him through an encrypted instant messaging application and published articles based on their conversations. After charging the source with terrorism-related offences, the RCMP obtained an ex parte production order requiring Vice Media Canada (Vice) and its journalist to hand over the chat records. All nine judges — the five-judge majority, led by Moldaver J., and the four-judge concurrence, led by Abella J. — concluded that this production order should be upheld.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicFreedom of Expression and DefamationFrench-language works237,207