MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7139462042

R. v. S.A.B:Putting self-incrimination in context

2004· article· en· W7139462042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee Stuesser

Bibliographic record

VenueBond University Research Portal (Bond University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalitySupreme courtLegislationChoseContext (archaeology)Search and seizure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. S.A.B. unanimously upheld the constitutionality of DNA warrants. 1 That result is not surprising. What is interesting is the route the Court chose to uphold the law. The defence presented a double-barrelled argument. First, it was argued that seizure of DNA under the warrants constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter. 2 Second, it was argued that by compelling an accused to provide DNA material the legislation violated the principle against self-incrimination found in s. 7 of the Charter. The Court eschewed arguments based on self-incrimination and concentrated on search and seizure as the more appropriate framework to determine the constitutionality of the legislation. In other words, the Court saw search and seizure as the primary issue and not self-incrimination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBond University Research Portal (Bond University)Same topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207