Nasogaluak: Foregone Opportunities in an Unduly Restrained Sentencing Decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Nasogaluak' usefully restates the role of the courts in guarding "against the illegitimate use of power by the police against members of our society, given is grave consequences," this unanimous decision is often so restrained that it fails to assert this responsibility with the resonance that its circumstances re-quire. The Supreme Court had opportunities to reinvigorate the use of s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the sentencing process, to capitalize on the communicative function of sentencing to sternly condemn police misconduct and to re-emphasize the need to be vigilant regarding the obligations of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code regarding Aboriginal accuseds. Despite its development of some positive themes, the decision is disappointing in each domain. Nasogaluak unnecessarily leaves vital issues to posterity for clarification and invigoration without adequate guideposts as to the orientation of the Supreme Court. In Tessling, the "midnight knock on the door" conjured up "the nightmare image of the police state," while Nasogaluak, despite its disturbing qualities for some minority Canadian arrestees, did not summon the same imagery. The case suggests that Thucydides conscience needs to be reinvoked by the Canadian judiciary: "Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are just as indignant as those who are injured."
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".