MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389107446 · doi:10.1163/9789004479593_003

Preface

2005· book-chapter· en· W4389107446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary Botting

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book examines the historical development of extradition in North America as reflected in successive extradition treaties, statutes, and cases in Canada and the United States.In particular, Canada's Extradition Act 1 delineates a new relationship between Canada and other countries, including the United States, by relaxing evidentiary rules and requirements and enhancing the discretionary decisionmaking powers of the Minister of Justice.Mter June 17, 1999, when the new Act came into force, American authorities where quick to follow the Canadian law rather than the strictures of the more cumbersome requirements of the Treaty on Extradition between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America. 2 In 2003, the United States and Canada amended the Treaty to conform to the new practice.Under the Second Protocol,3 first signed in January 2001 but which, due to intervening events, did not enter into force until April 30, 2003, requests from the United States to Canada now need to meet a very low evidentiary threshold to succeed at the hearing level.Rather than requiring affidavit or deposition evidence from witnesses as in the past, now the prosecutor in the United States is required simply to attest in a summary of the evidence, without necessity of oath or affirmation, that the evidence is available and was obtained according to law. 4 Under Sections 32 and 33 of the new Act, the Canadian court is obliged to accept this summary, contained in a "record of the case," into 1 S.C. 1999, ch. 18, formerly Bill C-40, second reading October 8, 1998, entered into force June 17, 1999, replacing the Extradition Act (R.S.C. 1985, ch.E-23) and the Fugitive Offenders Act (R.S.C. 1985, ch.F-32).See Appendix A 2 Ratified March 22, 1976.Hereafter referred to as the "Canada-U.S. Treaty" or simply as "the Treaty." 3 Second Protocol.Amending the Treaty on Extradition between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, E103844, entered into force April 30, 2003.Hereafter referred to as the Second Protocol.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4470.272

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207