MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126026167 · doi:10.29173/alr169

The Administration of Justice? Certificate Proceedings, Charkaoui II, and the Value of Disclosure

2010· article· en· W3126026167 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Graham Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyAgency (philosophy)CertificateTerrorismPublic administrationEconomic JusticeAdministration (probate law)National securityPolitical scienceUnited States National Security AgencyService (business)Value (mathematics)LawPublic relationsBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of 9/11, Canada was among a number of Western states that instituted a wide range of legal frameworks designed to more efficiently prevent and suppress transnational terrorism. One of the defining features of its national security policy has since been the integration of a selection of intelligence agencies into a global counterterrorism network. Operationally distinct agencies, such as the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Communications Security Establishment, and the Canada Border Services Agency have been centrally coordinated towards the end of facilitating intelligence exchange within and across our borders. With few opportunities for public scrutiny or parliamentary and judicial review, the flow of information has gone on largely unregulated and, in a selection of notable cases, has contributed to serious human rights abuses both at home and abroad.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.023
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207