The constitutionality of mandatory alcohol screening in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, random mandatory alcohol screening became a reality of the Canadian justice system. Before the law had even come into effect, it was being welcomed with open arms by some, and immediately castigated as unconstitutional by others. Compelling arguments for both sides have emerged in the wake of debate. Where Bill C-46 has enacted laws which have adversely affected the rights of drivers, an analysis of the new laws written within the Canadian Criminal Code, warrant an audit of their alignment with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This thesis challenges the constitutionality of section 320.27 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Code against sections 7 and 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In drawing on the public’s perception of the law, an array of precedent provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, and an analysis of both sections 7 and 1 of the Canadian Charter, an argument can be made which corroborates the notion that section 320.27 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".