MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155326177

The Constitutionality of Using Production Orders to Obtain Stored Communications Content

2018· article· en· W3155326177 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colton Fehr

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalityCharterProduction (economics)ParliamentLawOrder (exchange)State (computer science)Supreme courtPhrasePolitical scienceEconomic JusticeSection (typography)Computer scienceBusinessAdvertisingEconomicsPoliticsAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In R v Jones, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that producing text messages stored after transmission are accessible via a section 487.014 production order. If the state were to apply to intercept the same message a short time earlier, it would have to meet the much more stringent prerequisites under Part VI of the Criminal Code. The difference in time of reception and content received will often be negligible. Given the nearly identical privacy interests at issue, I maintain that utilizing a production order to produce stored messages will sometimes constitute an unreasonable search contrary to section 8 of the Charter. To address this constitutional defect, I recommend that Parliament include a requirement like that found in the general warrant provision in section 487.01(1(b), which requires any issuance be “in the best interests of the administration of justice.” Inclusion of this phrase would prevent technical differences in storage practices from altering constitutional standards for acquiring private communications.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.016
Scholarly communication0.0180.013
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207