Canada (Attorney General) v. Fontaine: un complicato bilanciamento tra riservatezza e interesse pubblico al vaglio della Corte suprema canadese
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il 6 ottobre 2017 la Corte suprema del Canada pronunciava una sentenza (Canada – Attorney General v. Fontaine) con cui, all’unanimità, rigettava il ricorso proposto dal Procuratore generale avverso la decisione della Corte di appello dell’Ontario che, confermando quella adottata dalla Corte superiore provinciale, accoglieva la richiesta di destruction di tutta la documentazione utilizzata nell’ambito del c.d. Independent Assessment Process (IAP) istituito appositamente ai sensi dell’Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) firmato nel 2006 con il duplice obiettivo di “achieve a fair, comprehensive and lasting resolution of the legacy of Indian Residential Schools” e di “promote healing, education, truth and reconciliation and commemoration”. Il contributo, dopo aver ricostruito le vicende all’origine della controversia, formula alcune riflessioni sull’operato dei giudici in particolare quanto al bilanciamento da essi condotto tra esigenze pubbliche e necessità private, tra “the need to memorialize and commemorate, all the while respecting the choice of survivors to share (or not share) their stories”. The paper studies the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2017 – Canada Attorney General v. Fontaine.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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 it