Electronic Records and the Law of Evidence in Canada: The Uniform Electronic Evidence Act Twelve Years Later
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse la pertinence du Uniform Electronic Evidence Act, douze ans aprs son adoption, pour traiter de la complexit des documents crs, consults ou conservs dans un environnement numrique.Face aux changements rapides dans le domaine de la technologie, les auteurs croient qu'on ne peut pas tenir compte de la nature et des caractristiques des documents numriques en effectuant de simples modifications la loi existante, mais qu'on doit faire promulguer une nouvelle lgislation qui tiendra compte de la collaboration troite entre les professionnels qui travaillent dans les domaines des documents d'archives, du droit et du respect de la loi, et des technologies de l'information.Les nouveaux rglements, couvrant l'ensemble des questions lies la pertinence, l'admissibilit et le poids de la preuve documentaire lectronique, devront tre bass la fois sur le corpus du savoir de chaque profession, les rsultats de la recherche interdisciplinaire et les normes existantes par rapport aux documents d'archives.La promulgation de tels rglements aiderait les tribunaux tirer des conclusions exactes, bases sur des documents numriques crs dans des environnements fiables et conservs sous forme authentique aussi longtemps que ncessaire, ce qui amoindrirait la confusion continue au sujet de l'admissibilit et de l'usage des documents numriques dans les procs.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it