Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: Military lawyers—lawyers who are legal officers in the Canadian Forces— are virtually ignored in the Canadian legal literature. This article assesses what appear to be the most striking potential legal ethics issues facing military lawyers. Several of these issues arise because military lawyers are both lawyers and military officers at the same time, and therefore face two sets of obligations that interact in complex ways. Some issues, however, arise because of the special practice contexts of military lawyers, for example, advising military commanders on the law of armed conflict. As context for this discussion, the article examines the relationship and tension between the Judge Advocate General and the Minister of Justice. It concludes with recommendations for amendments to the rules of professional conduct and the legislation governing the Canadian Forces to resolve these ethical issues. The article also proposes legislative amendments to clarify the relationship, and reduce the tension, between the Judge Advocate General and the Minister of Justice.French Abstract: Les avocats militaires, c’est-à-dire les avocats qui sont des officiers juridiques dans les Forces canadiennes, sont rarement mentionnés dans la doctrine canadienne. L’auteur analyse les questions de déontologie juridique les plus saillantes auxquelles les avocats militaires seraient potentiellement exposés. Plusieurs de ces questions se présentent parce que les avocats militaires, étant à la fois avocats et officiers militaires, sont ainsi confrontés à deux ensembles d’obligations qui interagissent de façon complexe. Toutefois, certaines difficultés se posent aussi en raison du contexte particulier de la pratique des avocats militaires qui pourraient, par exemple, être appelés à conseiller les commandants militaires sur le droit des conflits armés. Pour mettre cette discussion en contexte, l’auteur examine la relation entre le juge-avocat général et le ministère de la Justice ainsi que la tension qui la sous-tend. Il conclut en recommandant que les règles de déontologie et la législation régissant les Forces canadiennes soient modifiées dans le but de résoudre ces questions d’ordre éthique. Il propose par ailleurs des modifications législatives visant à clarifier la relation et à réduire la tension qui existe entre le juge-avocat général et le ministère de la Justice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".