The Umpires Strike Back: Canadian Judicial Experience with Risk-Assessment Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comme les responsables des politiques pénitentiaires canadiens ont commencé à implanter l'usage des outils d'évaluation du risque pour divers types de décisions liées aux peines et aux probations, on demande souvent aux juges de trancher sur leur admissibilité et leur pertinence probante dans une variété de contextes, plus particulièrement lors de l'imposition d'une peine. Jusqu'à présent, les juges ont donné leur avis dans certains contextes: la non-divulgation (par le conseil ou les agents de correction) du fait qu'on a utilisé un outil d'évaluation du risque; l'emploi de politiques de « dérogation par le ministère » pour certaines infractions; les compétences de l'évaluateur, et les renseignements ayant servi à formuler l'évaluation. Dans un cadre plus large, les juges se sont joints aux universitaires, qui s'inquiètent du fait qu'accorder trop de confiance à l'évaluation du risque pourrait nuire à la proportionnalité. As Canadian correctional policy makers have begun to embed usage of riskassessment instruments in various forms of penal and probation decision making, judges are frequently being asked to rule upon their admissibility and evidentiary relevance in a variety of contexts, most particularly sentencing. Judges have commented in a number of contexts to date: non-disclosure (by counsel or by correctional officials) of the fact that a risk-assessment instrument is being used; the use of ''ministry override'' policies for certain offences; the qualifications of the assessor; and the information used to formulate the assessment. At a broader level, judges have joined academic commentators in expressing concerns that over-reliance on risk assessment may trump proportionality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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".