Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws on the Supreme Court of British Columbia's Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada [the Polygamy Reference] as a concrete example of the benefits and limitations of intense judicial reliance on social science evidence in the adjudication of constitutional rights and freedoms at the trial level. By examining the evidence tendered, I suggest that the current adversarial model of adjudication is illsuited to combining the legal and the social scientific endeavours. The divergent values, methodologies and objectives of the legal and scientific enterprises severely limit the benefits that the former can yield, thus compromising the effectiveness and utility of the courts for social groups whose claims are heavily grounded in non-legal evidence. Further,I argue that the vast amounts of contradictory evidence typically tendered in rights challenges, as well as the complex and controversial nature of Charter questions and the inevitable need for judges to adjudicate values, risk resulting in undue deference to the legislator, hinder the delivery of justice and ultimately undermine the raison-d'tre of Charter litigation. Cet article concerne le renvoi porté devant la Cour suprême de la Colombie Britannique au sujet de l’article293 du Code criminel [Polygamy Reference – renvoi sur la polygamie], qui constitue un exemple concret des avantages et inconvénients de l’utilisation intensive des éléments de preuve relevant des sciences sociales dans la détermination des droits et libertés constitutionnels en première instance. En examinant les éléments de preuve présentés, j’affirme dans cet article que le modèle actuel de règlement des litiges, qui repose sur l’approche accusatoire, se prête mal à la combinaison des démarches juridiques et de celles qui relèvent des sciences sociales. Les valeurs, méthodologies et objectifs divergents des démarches juridiques et scientifiques restreignent les avantages inhérents aux méthodes juridiques, ce qui compromet l’efficacité et l’utilité des tribunaux pour les groupes sociaux dont les revendications reposent en grande partie sur des éléments de preuve de nature non juridique. Je soutiens également que la multitude d’éléments de preuve contradictoires habituellement présentés dans les litiges mettant en cause des droits, conjuguée à la nature complexe et controversée des questions concernant la Charte et à la nécessité inévitable pour les juges de soupeser des valeurs, risque de se traduire par une trop grande déférence envers le législateur, de nuire à l’administration de la justice et, en bout de ligne, de saper la raison d’être des litiges fondés sur la Charte.
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 | 0.078 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".