MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W338309623 · doi:10.29173/mlj826

The “Great Writ” Reinvigorated? Habeas Corpus in Contemporary Canada

2012· article· en· W338309623 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debra Parkes

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabeas corpusWritLawPolitical scienceDoctrineCharterSociologyHistoryConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This short prelude to Professor James Oldham’s 2nd Annual DeLloyd J Guth Visiting Lecture in Legal History, “Habeas Corpus, Legal History and Guantanamo Bay,” discusses some of ways that the writ of habeas corpus plays an important role in promoting access to justice and protecting basic liberty interests in contemporary Canadian law. The focus will be on developments in the law since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, touching on two important features of a modern doctrine of habeas corpus, namely flexibility and gap-filling, both of which Professor Oldham also develops in his essay.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0320.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207