DOUBLE INCHOATE CRIMES: SERVING A USEFUL PURPOSE OR DOUBLE TROUBLE? Déry v The Queen; Attorney General of Canada et al, Interveners [2007] 213 CCC (3d) 289 (SCC)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inchoate crimes have been categorized by Husak as either “complex” inchoate crimes, such as attempt, conspiracy or incitement (the equivalent of which is known as “solicitation” in US law, and “counselling” in Canadian law) and “simple” inchoate crimes such ashousebreaking with intent, drunk driving and crimes of possession, where the crime serves as a means to punish an actor before a certain harm has been completed. A combination of inchoate crimes may be referred to as “double inchoate crimes”. Concerns have been expressed about the use of double inchoate crimes to found criminal liability. Whilst a combination of the categories typically does not give rise to difficulties in South African law, and is generally uncontroversial, the question arises whether a combination of complex inchoate crimes is appropriate, particularly in the light of criticism of such formulations in certain jurisdictions (such as Canada and the United States), and statutory restrictions on certain formulations in others (such as England).This question will be examined in the light of the recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court decision of R v Déry.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 it