‘A carnival of crime on our border’: International Law, Imperial Power, and Extradition in Canada, 1865–1883
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper traces the development of Canadian extradition law from the formation of a pro-extradition consensus in the 1860s to the passage of a new Canadian statute in 1877, to that act's final ratification by Britain in 1883. This process of law reform illustrates Britain's continuing legal power in Canada. Throughout the 1870s and 1880s imperial authorities suppressed, delayed, and rewrote dominion extradition law, bringing it back into line with Britain's shifting policy. But the legal ideas that Britain exported to the colonies in this period were not particularly British at all. Rather, what arrived in Canada in the 1870s was an emerging branch of international law heavily influenced by Europe – one that balanced extensive international co-operation against crime with individual civil liberties protections and safeguards for political asylum-seekers. Its origins were in post-revolutionary France, and as it spread to Britain and then the colonies it frustrated Canadian attempts to design a new extradition policy. As a result, this article illustrates the interplay between international law and imperial power in nineteenth-century Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".