MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360994723 · doi:10.22329/tclr.v1i2.7931

Admissibility of Hearsay Gathered Under MLAT: A Tempest in Canada

2023· article· en· W4360994723 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert J. Currie

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Criminal Law Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHearsayLawState (computer science)TempestPolitical scienceAdmissible evidenceWork (physics)Resistance (ecology)EngineeringComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most pervasive and longstanding problems in the practice of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between states has been ‘form of evidence’ – specifically, can the requested state provide evidence in such form as will be useful and admissible under the criminal evidence laws of the requesting state? It tends to be common law states that have difficulties with admissibility of MLAT-sourced evidence, and these often develop ‘work-arounds’ in their laws which attempt to relax admissibility standards. Canada is one such state, but a series of recent prosecutions has revealed judicial resistance to the tools employed. This note examines these cases and suggests some lessons they contain for broader practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransnational Criminal Law ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207