Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court released its decision in R. v. Brown in May 2022. 1 The appellant had challenged the consistency of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code with sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.2 The Supreme Court held that this provision was an unjustifiable limitation of both Charter rights, and accordingly declared the impugned provision invalid.3 For the purpose of this book review, the most relevant aspect of Brown is the Supreme Court's treatment of section 7, in particular the principles of fundamental justice that were relied upon.4 The first such principle was "that proof of penal negligence, in the form of a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person, is minimally required for a criminal conviction, unless the specific nature of the crime demands subjective fault." 5 The second principle of fundamental justice relied on by the Supreme Court was the requirement of voluntariness if one is to be convicted of a crime.6 * The author holds a JD and an MA (Political Science) from the University of Toronto.In his practice, he provides legal advice on the Charter and international human rights law, primarily in the areas of criminal law, immigration, corrections, and national security.The views expressed in this review are of the author alone and are not those of the Department of Justice or the Government of Canada.The author extends many thanks to his colleagues in the Human Rights Law Section, including his supportive managers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".