MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103316784

The Constitutional Stopping of\nMotor Vehicles in Canada and\nthe United States:\nA Comparative Analysis

2020· article· W7103316784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2020
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtPower (physics)PropositionSupreme Court DecisionsConstitutional law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When can the police constitutionally stop a motor vehicle in the United States of America and Canada? In this column, I intend to examine this question through a comparative analysis that considers the law in both countries. As will be seen, the power of the police to stop a motor vehicle in Canada is significantly greater than the power of the police to do so in the United States.\nI intend to illustrate this proposition by considering the most recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on this issue (Kanas v. Glover, 140 S.Ct. 1183 (2020)), and then the law in Canada. I will also consider how Glover would likely have been decided in Canada. Finally, I will end by considering how the issue of “racial profiling” has affected the stopping of motorists by the police in Canada. Let us start with the facts in Glover.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207