Keeping up with the Common Law O'Sullivans? The Limits of Comparative Law in the Context of Military Justice Law Reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critics of the Canadian military justice system have recently suggested that Canada should follow developments in military law that have taken place in Ireland, particularly with respect to the expansive procedural rights that are now afforded to accused persons who face summary forms of trial within the Irish system. This article demonstrates that these calls for comparative-based law reform fail to appreciate important differences in the Irish and Canadian environments within which the respective military justice systems operate, specifically through a case study that discusses the distinct international human rights law obligations that bind the two states, and the unique labour climates within the two armed forces. Ultimately, after illustrating how comparative law alone cannot provide a compelling rationale for military justice law reforms in Canada, the article refers to the Irish/Canadian case study in order to argue that knowledge of comparative law is perhaps more useful to responsible scholars in order to deconstruct law reform proposals rather than to generate new law reform ideas.
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 | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".