Judgment Day: A Vignette
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FOR CHRISTINE ST-PIERRE, a television reporter in the parliamentary bureau of Radio-Canada, CBC's French-language network, judgment day promised to be nerve-racking and chaotic.The case of John Robin Sharpe, an older man caught in possession of child pornography, had stirred a great deal of publicity and controversy.The decisions rendered by the lower courts had made headlines across the country.Police associations, parental groups, civil libertarians, feminists, and clerics had staked out their positions on the case.What made St-Pierre's job so difficult was that she would have to go on air at noon -almost the same time the judgment was being handed down.She had done as much preparation as she could prior to the decision.She had read a resume of the Sharpe case that had been prepared by the Supreme Court of Canada, she had reviewed press clippings about lower court decisions, and attended briefings given by the Department of Justice and by the court's executive legal officer, James O'Reilly.Although she sometimes speaks to experts, she hadn't had time to phone or consult with anyone beforehand. 1 The court handed down three decisions on Friday, 26 January 2001.Two of the judgments, a case in administrative law from Ontario (whether principles that had guided a particular set of labour relations board consultations had violated the rules of natural justice) and a criminal case from Newfoundland (whether a mentally challenged complainant had to be called as a witness), received no media coverage, evaporating from public view as soon as they were released.From a media perspective, these cases were dead on arrival.But the Sharpe case, which dealt with the possession of child pornography, had all the ingredients of a major news story.Sharpe, a retired city planner who lived in Vancouver and who had won some recognition as a writer, fit the popular conception of what a sex deviant might look like: old and dishevelled, and a bit decrepit.Far from being embarrassed by his perverse behaviour, Sharpe seemed to revel in it.For most Canadians, the case was primarily about ensuring that children are protected from the exploitation of pornographers.Emotions ran deep.For others, the Sharpe case was about freedom of expression.Of particular concern was whether creating diaries or drawings or visual materials for one's own use constituted criminal behaviour.However repugnant Sharpe's behaviour might be, his rights had to be protected.There was also the overhang of partisan politics.The Alliance Party had made the Sharpe case into a cause celebre.Pressure had mounted on the Liberal government to react strongly if the court ruled in [I]
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".