Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".