MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385861986 · doi:10.59962/9780774817554-001

Preface and Acknowledgments

2010· book-chapter· en· W4385861986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel wrote of how developments within the criminal law and, more recently, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have come to ensure that "the criminal process ... is governed by principles of fundamental justice that are set out clearly in the Charter." 1 This he contrasted with the situation in earlier times, which he evoked with a reference to one of the most abiding images in legal history: "At least, after a few centuries, the path of the criminal law no longer leads from the gloom and filth of Newgate to a dance in the sky at Tyburn after a brief encounter with a hanging judge." 2 Equating hanging -neatly bundled with flawed courts and an inhumane penal system -with injustice in this way suggests that it is a relic of the distant past, but, though there may be considerable truth to this view insofar as courts and prisons are concerned, there is much less truth with respect to hanging per se: hangings were conducted in Canada as recently as the 1960s, and the death penalty was abolished only in 1976.Before that, capital punishment was securely entrenched in Canada's legal system, and indeed, at the time of Confederation and for many decades after, hanging occupied an important place -in some senses a central place -in Canada's criminal justice.During this period of roughly a century -a little less if one counts the years during which hangings did occur, a little more if one counts the years in which they could have taken place -several hundred people died on gallows raised across the country.Their deaths seem in many respects to have been part of the normal life of the nation: they were routinely reported in newspapers and, latterly, in other media, as part of the news of the day; the federal Cabinet, which was required to issue an Order-in-Council before each hanging, actually had standardized forms printed up for the purpose, with blanks so that the appropriate names and dates could be filled in; and as recently as 1956, after two years of deliberations, a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3080.166

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks→Same topicCriminal Law and Evidence→French-language works237,207→