Reflections on the Legal Evolucion of Free Expresions in Canada and Colombian in the Context of Democratic Consolidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This article seeks to understand the manner in which the commitment to freedom of expression has evolvedin both Canada and Colombia, based on the examination of historical patterns and court decisions. Through thelens of the Canadian experience, it looks at the difficulties faced by Colombia, where the state is still struggling to exercise the monopoly of power within its own territoryas a first stumbling block to the consolidation of its democracy. Any effort to compare the exercise of liberties in two countries with such different legal traditions faces obvious challenges, even more so when after 200 years of independence one of the countries has still failed to achieve the stability and security required toassure sustainable economic development. However, in the 21st century the principles underlying the political and economic systems of bothcountries are the same, and they share, at least formally, a commitment to respect democracy, human rights and principles of good government. This is the primary motivation behind this analysis."
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".