Evidence of Torture in Canada: The New Normal of Official Complicity? (January 2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Date & Time: Wednesday, 9 January, 2013 – 1230-530pmLocation: Room 1014, Ignat Kaneff Building, Osgoode Hall Law School (#32 on this map)\nRATIONALE:\nOver the last few years, reports and charges of increasing casualness by Canadian officials vis-à-vis the practice of torture, and information obtained by means of torture, have been circulating in the media, as well as legal and governmental circles. In light of the conclusions (and warnings made in the context) of the various public inquiries that looked at related questions during the past decade, this alleged shift in official attitudes is worrying and calls for public scrutiny.\nThis special forum seeks to take stock of the current state of the “torture question” in Canada, provide a platform for public debate about the issue, and spur further discussions about its most pressing and problematic aspects. It aims to bring together leading academics and lawyers confronting this issue in their work, as well as relevant Parliamentarians and journalists.\nAmongst the central themes to be tackled at the forum are the following: recent government directives to administrative agencies about acting on the basis of torture-tainted evidence (for example, see Memorandum for the Minister under additional files); the hand over of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities by Canadian forces with, allegedly, the knowledge that they could be tortured (and attempts to forestall subsequent public/political scrutiny – see further transcripts of a previous Nathanson special forum on this issue); as well as ongoing debates about the use of transnational evidence (possibly obtained by means of torture) in the context not only of criminal and immigration proceedings, but also civil proceedings.\nThis special forum is open to the public, and the media is welcome (interviews with individual speakers may be arranged upon request). For further inquiries, please contact Ms. Lielle Gonsalves, assistant to the Nathanson Centre, at lgonsalves@osgoode.yorku.ca.\nPROGRAMME \nSee attached file.\nVIDEO RECORDINGS:\nPanel 1 - Evidence of Torture in Canada and the Courts: Immigration, Criminal, Civil (9 Jan 2013)\nPanel 2 - Evidence of Torture in Canada & Executive Action: CSIS, RCMP, CBSA et al. (9 Jan 2013)\nPanel 3 - Evidence of Torture in Canada & Armed Conflicts: Afghan Detainees Case et al. (9 Jan 2013)\nMEDIA COVERAGE: \n1. YFile Article (11 January 2013)2. Radio Interview of Professor François Tanguay-Renaud, Champ Libre, Radio-Canada (14 January 2013, in French).
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".