Examining the case fo a journalist-source privilege: a comparative analysis of the level of protection afforded to journalistic sources in the UK, the US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vexed question of the appropriate level of legal protection for journalistic sources is currently the subject of global debate. There are various ways to afford protection to sources, but this thesis is concerned particularly with a proposed journalist-source privilege. This paper contends that such a journalist-source privilege is fundamentally desirable, whether qualified or absolute. It analyses the costs of a privilege and balances them against the disadvantages of having little or no protection for sources. The thesis examines the differing levels of protection offered by three different jurisdictions. It discusses the situation in the United Kingdom, in the United States and finally in Canada. It is suggested that the law relating to journalist-source privilege (or source protection) remains unsettled in each of these major jurisdictions. In recent years journalists in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada have come under increasing pressure to reveal their sources, and this thesis argues that a journalist-source privilege is necessary to ensure that freedom of the press does not become an empty ideal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".