MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132901665

The end of law: Canada's national security legislation and the principle of shared humanity

2005· dissertation· W7132901665 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ziyaad E Mia

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2005
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeferenceLegislationNational securityGovernment (linguistics)HumanityDignity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, enacted in the aftermath of September 11th, has been assailed by critics as threatening fundamental rights. The Act's extraordinary powers will likely to be used primarily against Muslim Canadians, thereby creating an inferior subset of citizens and offending what Ronald Dworkin calls the principle of shared humanity. That principle suggests that every person is entitled to equal respect and dignity based on their humanity, rather than status, faith or ethnicity. The Act also makes distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, further revealing how Canada's national security legislation and jurisprudence, especially in the field of immigration, offend shared humanity. While citizens are offered somewhat greater respect than non-citizens, the courts have nevertheless shown exceptional deference to government claims of national security under the Act, as they have historically under other legislation. Even with the advent of the Charter, courts have not fully embraced their oversight role where national security is concerned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.018
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies→French-language works237,207→