MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3093449273

Safeguarding Confidential News Sources? Assessing the Protections in the Federal Journalistic Sources Protection Act

2019· article· en· W3093449273 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amar Khoday

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawLegislationPolitical scienceLawContext (archaeology)JurisdictionConfidentialityPrivilege (computing)Common lawParliamentPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The monograph, edited by Dr. Chris Hunt, examines various aspects of the law of privilege in Canada. This book chapter analyzes protections with respect to journalist-source communications in Canadian evidence law. After first explaining the application of the so-called case-by-case privilege to such communications and its limitations, the chapter then focuses attention on the statutory protections set out in the Journalistic Sources Protection Act which amends the Canada Evidence Act. The chapter scrutinizes the new statutory protections and their limitations, in addition to drawing comparisons with similar legislation in New Zealand. This chapter fits into my larger research agenda, which explores the intersections between law and resistance. The form of resistance discussed in this work is the conduct of journalistic sources who disclose confidential information about pressing matters of public concern to journalists. Journalists in turn then reveal the information to the public. Such unauthorized disclosures may relate to and expose the misconduct of public or private actors and consequently challenge their power. Law holds the power to protect and legitimize such resistance. However, this power to protect and legitimize correlates to the scope of journalist-source privilege in any given jurisdiction. In the context of the new statutory protections promulgated by the Canadian Parliament, such prophylaxes are tied to the text, context and purpose of the legislation and the corresponding interpretations courts may articulate.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0090.020
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCriminal Law and Evidence→French-language works237,207→