Bibliographic record
Abstract
For state conduct to constitute “punishment,” it must be a “consequence of conviction” that either furthers the “purpose and principles of sentencing” or qualifies as a “significant deprivation” of an individual’s liberty or security interests. The common practice of deeming time served in remand punishment is inconsistent with this definition. This follows because the consequence is incurred for reasons relating to bail, not conviction. The definition of punishment should therefore be broadened to include any consequence of being charged with an offence. Insisting that sanctions be imposed (or deemed imposed) in furtherance of the purpose and principles of punishment would ensure that this modification of the definition of punishment will not lead to unprincipled results. Bringing remand time within the constitutional definition of punishment would also lend the practice to a more determinate method for assessing the appropriate remedy for offenders who endure undue time on remand. If the time served constitutes grossly disproportionate punishment, I contend that a stay of proceedings ought to follow. In cases where the impugned deprivation of liberty occurred before a guilty verdict, however, a similar analysis can occur under the “treatment” prong of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Time served on remand that is not grossly disproportionate might nevertheless still be incurred due to a breach of the accused’s right to reasonable bail. In these circumstances, I maintain that a monetary remedy will be appropriate absent evidence of serious systemic failures in providing reasonable access to bail.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".