MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117581872

SHOPKEEPER’S PRIVILEGE: COMING TO A STORE NEAR YOU?

2019· article· en· W3117581872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Connor Bildfell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaPrivilege (computing)LawCorporationPolitical scienceBusinessLiabilityComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it comes to suspected shoplifting, Canadian merchants and their agents (collectively, “shopkeepers”) have traditionally faced a dilemma. Many Canadian courts have held that having reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed is insufficient to perform a lawful citizen’s arrest; rather, an offence must have actually been committed. As a result, shopkeepers who detain customers reasonably believed to have committed theft risk civil liability for false imprisonment if their belief turns out to have been mistaken. Yet, at the same time, shopkeepers have a legitimate interest in responding to suspected theft so as to protect their property and their livelihood. In view of this dilemma, the Ontario Superior Court in Mann v Canadian Tire Corporation Limited recognized, for the first time in Canada, a “shopkeeper’s privilege” permitting shopkeepers to perform brief investigative detentions based on a reasonable belief that theft has occurred. This article examines this development and argues that while there is space in Canada for shopkeeper’s privilege, it must be carefully circumscribed.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.290 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207