Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Khadr rules that the Charter applies to the actions of Canadian officials who interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantánamo Bay. It rules that their conduct violated section 7 of the Charter. Although the Court acknowledges that a request for repatriation would be an effective remedy, it declines to order the government to take any specific action to remedy the violation, and simply declares that Khadr’s rights were and are being violated. This comment develops two points: The timidity of the remedial aspect of the judgment is presaged and enabled by a narrow and convoluted characterization of how the government violated Khadr’s section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. Second, the significance of the Court’s remedial ruling in terms of its institutional responsibility to protect human rights must be read against a political context in which the government had repeatedly and unequivocally asserted that it would not seek Khadr’s repatriation of its own accord.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".