MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065864899

The Filing of Additional Reasons\nin Canada

2020· article· en· W7065864899 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArts, Culture, and Music Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerdictSupreme courtConvictionParagraphCriminal codeSentence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, requires a Canadian judge to provide “reasons” for any sentence imposed (see section 762.2). The Criminal Code does not require that reasons be provided for conviction or acquittal, but the Supreme Court of Canada has created a common-law requirement that reasons be provided when such decisions are rendered (see R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869). In R. v. M.(R.E.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, the Supreme Court indicated that the “basis for [a] trial judge’s verdict must be ‘intelligible,’ or capable of being made out. In other words, a logical connection between the verdict and the basis for the verdict must be apparent” (at paragraph 43).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.220 · 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