Dangerous and high-risk offender legislation in Canada: an examination of history, offenders and process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dangerous Offender (DO) legislation aimed at managing dangerous and high-risk individuals in Canada began development in the 1940s, and has since been the subject of considerable debate. DOs face Canada’s most severe measure for offenders: the indeterminate sentence. Alternatives for dangerous people who do not meet statutory requirements for DO designation and indeterminate sentences, but still pose a serious threat to society include: Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation and the Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO). This high-risk legislation involves complicated and lengthy legal processes, and is widely misunderstood by the public and justice system professionals. This project paper aims to thoroughly review, examine and critique dangerous and high-risk legislation and process in Canada; utilizing literature, case law and policy. Historical development, theory, current Criminal Code legislation and process, and research on dangerousness prediction related to specific groups of offenders are examined. Areas for future developments and research are also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".