Babos: Further Narrowing Access to a Stay of Proceedings Where the Integrity of the Judicial Process Is Implicated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian law surrounding the discernment of abuse of process and the search for an appropriate remedy is still traversing relatively new terrain. Although the courts' discretionary power to stay proceedings had a tremulous gestation period before Jewitt affirmed its viability in cases where "the Crown by its abuse of process is disentitled to a conviction," it took ten years before the broad contours of the current jural landscape were drawn. O'Connor, the "seminal" case which established the confluence between the common law and the Charter and the need to canvass both procedural wrongs relating to fairness and those which violate the residual category of the "community's sense of fair play and decency" is less than two decades old. Each authority which canvasses the latter variant is dissected carefully because these cases help to delineate what measures are "necessary to preserve and protect the integrity of the justice system" in order to avoid "judicial condonation of egregious misconduct" which would "erode the public's confidence in the administration of justice." Regrettably, Babos makes the already elusive remedy of a judicial stay of proceedings for this type of "impugned misconduct° even less accessible.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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.
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".