Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This paper explores the issues of balancing freedom and privacy rights with security. It also acts as a primer for debate about related government responsibilities and explains why the security rights dilemma-or how the threat of terrorism-may suspend the rights of Canadian citizens. Specific attention is paid to communication-related rights such as privacy and how the threat of terrorism allows due process and other checks and balances systems to be bypassed through various intelligence practices. This paper will identifY why risk appears to trump rights in the current security environment and explain why security cannot be privileged over rights as rights are an integral part of public security. The state appears to view security as purely, or at least primarily, physical, however, if the state concentrates counterterrorist efforts on physical security, then this ignores the social aspects of security and therefore does not provide an adequate level of protection for its citizens but only advances the interests of the state. There are several ways in which the need for state security and desire to preserve democratic freedoms and values can be balanced without sacrificing one over the other, but this must begin with dialogue between the state and its citizens."--Pages 1-2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".