MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185556658 · doi:10.3138/jcs-2020-0003

Canada’s First Celebrity Drug Trial: R v. Hatfield, 1985

2021· article· en· W3185556658 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Greg Marquis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattlePossession (linguistics)PoliticsLawVictoryIndependence (probability theory)SociologyPolitical scienceMedia studiesCriminologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1960s, celebrity drug trials have usually involved actors or musicians. The first drug prosecution of a Canadian “celebrity” took place in 1985 after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) found a small amount of marijuana in the luggage of New Brunswick Premier Richard Hatfield at the airport in Fredericton. He was charged with simple possession and, aided by a team of lawyers, pleaded not guilty. Although Hatfield was the most successful premier in the province’s history, he was facing challenges over the economy and language policy, and a finding of guilt would have devastated both his political career and the fortunes of his party. This article examines the Hatfield drug prosecution, which was followed by revelations of drug use with university students in 1981, as a chapter in Canadian legal and political history. It involved not only a privileged defendant, but also the independence of judges, the role of the RCMP, the relationship between the courts and the media, federal-provincial relations and an internal RCMP probe. Hatfield, the political celebrity, won his 1985 court battle but, with his lifestyle impugned, lost in the court of public opinion. In 1987, his party was crushed by the landslide victory of Frank McKenna’s Liberals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207