Intervention in the Supreme Court of Canada's <i>Bissonnette</i> case: Assessing the relationship between international and Canadian criminal law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, which follows the authors' intervention in the Bissonnette case before the Supreme Court of Canada, highlights the jurisprudential context surrounding the analytical framework upon which judges are called to base their interpretation and application of Canadian domestic law - in this case, the sentencing regime under sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter - when resorting to the normativity of international law. In addition to clarifying the persuasive value of international criminal law norms in the interpretation of the Canadian Charter, this paper seeks to nuance the principles of sentencing review under international criminal law, which differ from those under Canadian domestic law. Essentially, this consolidation of existing interlegal principles serves to correct the ambiguity left by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which, had it not been for the Supreme Court decision, could have led to the instability and unpredictability of the case law on the application of international law in Canadian law.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".