Leonard Doust, Q.C. Confirms Findings and Recommendation of Special Prosecutor Victoria-The Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General today
Bibliographic record
Abstract
an RCMP investigation into allegations of misconduct involving individuals associated with the community of Bountiful, British Columbia. Mr. Doust concluded that "given both practical considerations and concerns about fairness, a reference rather than a prosecution is the most appropriate way to proceed at this time" Mr. Doust further agreed with Mr. Peck's conclusions that: 1. polygamy, as prohibited by s.293 of the Criminal Code, is the root cause of the misconduct in the Bountiful community and the proper focus of any prosecution; 2, while s.293 infringes s.2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would likely be upheld as a reasonable limit under s.1. On September 6, 2007, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Robert W.G. Gillen, Q.C. received written directions from the Attorney General directing the Branch to retain the legal services of Mr. Doust to conduct a review of Mr. Peck's analysis leading to the conclusion that a prosecution was less preferable than a reference in relation to the constitutionality of the polygamy provisions of the Criminal Code. If Mr. Doust concluded that a prosecution for the offence of polygamy met the Branch's charge approval standard he was to conduct the prosecution. In compliance with the directions, the Branch retained Mr. Doust and published the Attorney General's written directions in the September 13, 2007 edition of the BC Gazette as required under the Crown Counsel Act.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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".