MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W35162743 · doi:10.29173/alr130

Access Denied? Inconsistent Jurisprudence on the Open Court Principle and Media Access to Exhibits in Canadian Criminal Cases

2011· article· en· W35162743 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dana Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtJurisprudencePolitical scienceMajority opinionCriminal courtOrder (exchange)Interpretation (philosophy)Court of equityOriginal jurisdictionSociologyInternational lawComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The open court principle is a central tenet of the Canadian justice system. However, in cases involving media access to exhibits entered in court, the courts have been neither clear nor consistent in their interpretation and application of the open court principle. This article discusses the historical development of the open court principle and the definition of an “open court” today. The author proposes that the Supreme Court of Canada should clarify that the open court principle extends to access to exhibits and re-articulate the Dagenais/Mentuck test in order to resolve the inconsistencies regarding the open court principle.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0190.042
Scholarly communication0.0170.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207