Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
POLICY When considering whether British Columbia should request the Government of Canada to apply to another country for the extradition of an accused or convicted fugitive, Crown Counsel should consult with Regional or Deputy Regional Crown Counsel. Relevant factors include the following: • whether the return of the fugitive can be achieved through some alternative process (such as voluntary return or deportation) • whether the Crown has a strong case to support extradition • whether the circumstances of the case and the public interest warrant the initiation of extradition proceedings • whether the Crown would be seeking a relatively substantial jail sentence, usually penitentiary time Once a preliminary decision has been made to proceed, Crown Counsel should consult with the Headquarters lawyer responsible for extradition who can advise on the treaty requirements. This will assist Regional or Deputy Regional Crown Counsel in making a final decision as to whether an application should be prepared. The procedure outlined below should be followed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.010 |
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".