Special Forum on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan (February 2010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Session Theme: Moral and Legal Responsibility with Respect to Alleged Mistreatment of Transferred Detainees in Afghanistan\nOn Monday, February 8, 2010, 10am – 4pm, the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security hosted a special event in York University’s Senate Chamber.\nContext and Purpose: The Prime Minister of Canada requested and was granted prorogation by the Governor-General at the end of December 2009. One of the effects of prorogation is that the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, made up of Members of Parliament from all parties, cannot officially meet because Parliament’s business is totally ended by the act of prorogation. In this context, The Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security of York University and Osgoode Hall Law School seek to highlight the special importance of democratic scrutiny of, and debate over, conduct with respect to persons detained in Afghanistan by the Canadian Armed Forces who, it has been alleged, were either mistreated or risked being mistreated after their transfer to Afghan authorities by the Canadian military. Were it not for prorogation, the House of Commons Special Committee would be meeting again in February, following a January break for MPs. Because prorogation has prevented the Special Committee from continuing the examination of witnesses and evidence that it had begun in 2009, the Nathanson Centre and Osgoode invited experts on various aspects of the issue of detainee transfer to give presentations throughout the day on February 8, 2010, so that reflection by Canadians on the morality and legality of conduct related to the Afghan detainee could be facilitated.\nThe invited experts made presentations at the below-indicated times on various issues related to the detainee-transfer issue. Questioning was carried out by a panel consisting of: Professor Craig Scott, Chairperson of the Special Forum (Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School; Director, Nathanson Centre); The Honourable Bob Rae, Member of Parliament (Toronto Centre – Lib.); Colonel (Ret’d) Michel W. Drapeau, Michael Drapeau Law Offices and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa \nA written submission from Commander (Ret’d) William Fenrick, now a professor at Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law, was invited and received by the Special Forum. Entitled “Observations Concerning the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan and the Treatment of Detainees” (dated February 4, 2010). The Fenrick submission can be found under additional files.\nTwo days after the Special Forum, Professor Craig Scott presented a report and commentary on the Special Forum to the (prorogued) House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan on Wednesday, February 10, 2010, at the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. The presentation was at the invitation of the Special Committee at the initiative of the Bloc Québécois. The Scott submission can be found under additional files.\nSee attached file for a list of presentations. Presentation transcripts can be found under additional files.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".