MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W69389177 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v27i2.4533

De-Conflicting Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Legislation: Khawaja and the Ongoing Challenges of the ‘Armed Conflict’ Exclusion

2009· article· en· W69389177 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher K. Penny

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismPolitical scienceLegislationLegislatureArmed conflictStatutory lawLawCounter terrorismEconomic JusticeCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The definition of ‘terrorist activity’ is fundamental to Canada’s anti-terrorism legislation. Following the recent trial of Momin Khawaja before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it is clear that the ‘armed conflict’ exclusion – exempting wartime activities undertaken in accordance with international law – poses serious challenges to the coherence of this legislative regime, threatening the effectiveness of future domestic terrorism prosecutions. This article examines the ‘armed conflict’ exclusion and its judicial treatment in Khawaja, identifying key challenges and making specific recommendations to address them. Coupled with other issues arising from the ‘armed conflict’ exclusion, Khawaja serves to highlight a clear and pressing need for amendment of the statutory definition of ‘terrorist activity.’

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207