MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396715377 · doi:10.29173/mlj1289

Year in Review

2022· article· en· W4396715377 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Ireland

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealLawJurisprudencePolitical scienceSupreme courtSkepticismDoctrineLegal doctrinePeriod (music)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2020 was defined by the global COVID-19 pandemic, which has changed how we live, work, and interact with one another. 2020 was also notable in witnessing Canadian society adapt and respond to broader social movements calling for change. Decisions from both the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and the Manitoba Court of Appeal (MBCA) have responded to these shifting social norms by recognizing broad systemic issues pervasive in the justice system and society-at-large. There is much to celebrate when courts venture into these waters, but the age-old polemic of judicial activism is sure to follow when courts raise their voices beyond the confines of legal doctrine. This article comments on some of the most important cases decided in this unique and turbulent year in Canada. We examine the jurisprudence of the MBCA and the SCC in February 2020 through February 2021, inclusive, with the goal of highlighting recent changes and developments in the criminal law. Where relevant, some appeals that fall outside of this period will be discussed due to their significance to the law. Further, using the framework and parameters developed in previous Robsoncrim “Year in Review” articles, we have attached an appendix of statistical infographics which highlight statistical findings of the decisions of the SCC and MBCA between the period of February 2020 and February 2021. In 2020, the SCC also appears to have continued its trend of limiting full written decisions, preferring instead to issue extremely brief judgments. While clear and succinct legal writing is to be encouraged, there can be little doubt that fulsome reasons are required to guide lower courts’ decision-making. Under Chief Justice Wagner, the SCC continues to offer plenty of dissenting opinions and disagreement within the Court; all of it, however, appears more “tightly packaged” than under the previous tenure of Chief Justice McLachlin. It remains to be seen if this warm embrace of brevity is to be celebrated or if a lack of detailed analysis breeds confusion in the courts below.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3130.163

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207