MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7039379751

La saisie de données situées dans le nuage en droit criminel canadien

2019· article· fr· W7039379751 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsCentre de Développement du Porc du QuébecDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSupreme courtContext (archaeology)JurisprudenceLegislation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article 8 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés prévoit que « chacun a droit à la protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies abusives ». Cette disposition a fait couler beaucoup d’encre depuis son adoption, mais aussi plus récemment en raison de son application aux nouvelles technologies. En effet, dans les 20 dernières années, la Cour suprême du Canada a adapté les principes généraux découlant des fouilles, saisies et perquisitions aux réalités informatiques nouvelles, notamment l’ordinateur et le cellulaire. Toutefois, l’émergence de nouvelles technologies est un phénomène qui ne cesse jamais. L’essor de l’infonuagique, ce modèle d’utilisation d’Internet qui permet l’accès à des services à distance, incluant notamment la sauvegarde de données sur des serveurs délocalisés, nous force à revoir la protection constitutionnelle qui peut etre accordée aux données personnelles des individus. A travers l’étude des principes généraux applicables aux fouilles, saisies et perquisitions, nous expliquerons pourquoi les données délocalisées sauvegardées grâce à l’infonuagique peuvent être protégées par l’article 8 de la Charte. Nous analyserons également les différentes autorisations judiciaires permettant leur saisie, de même que certains autres principes connexes.\nSection 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. This provision has been written about extensively since its adoption, but also more recently because of its application to new technologies. In fact, in the last 20 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has adapted the general principles arising from search and seizure law to new technological realities, including computers and cell phones. However, the emergence of new technologies is a phenomenon that never stops. The rise of cloud computing, this model of Internet utilisation that allows access to remote services, including but not limited to data storage on delocalized servers, forces us to review the constitutional protection that can be granted to personal data. Through the study of the general principles applicable to search and seizure, we will explain why delocalized data saved using cloud computing can be protected under section 8 of the Charter. We will also analyze the various judicial authorizations available to obtain this data, as well as certain other related principles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.018
Science and technology studies0.0210.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicCriminal Law and Evidence→French-language works237,207→