MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3195226208

Recent Developments in Canadian Criminal Law

2016· article· en· W3195226208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerry Ferguson, Benjamin L. Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalityMens reaLawReactionaryCriminal lawSupreme courtPolitical sciencePresumptionPresumption of innocenceExcuseGovernment (linguistics)CriminologyPoliticsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review canvasses and analyses a number of significant sentencing, substantive, procedural and evidentiary developments in Canadian criminal law. Recent political changes lead to hopes for a new course for criminal law policy in Canada, including rolling back of mandatory minimum sentences. This review examines the Supreme Court’s most recent statement on the constitutionality of mandatory minimums, and the broader implications of that decision. Topics covered in this article also include the striking down of the criminal prohibition against medically assisted suicide, enactment of reactionary prostitution offences, an affirmation of the strong presumption of subjective mens rea for crimes without express words of mens rea, clarification of the intoxication defence, a radical limitation on the defence of provocation by the former, tough-on-crime Conservative government, a reaffirmation that sexsomnia constitutes insanity rather than automatism, developments in the admissibility of confessions obtained through undercover “Mr Big” police operations, and abolition of spousal incompetence.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.022
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies→French-language works237,207→