小说科学还是口述历史?加拿大法院共同制作资料的可采性

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-03-25 DOI:10.29173/ALR2528
D. Isaac
{"title":"小说科学还是口述历史?加拿大法院共同制作资料的可采性","authors":"D. Isaac","doi":"10.29173/ALR2528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Co-production is an emerging source of information about the world, but it is one that has not been adequately theorized in the legal literature. Because co-production contains aspects of both novel science and oral history, it is not clear how it can be admitted. I argue that coproduced information does not clearly fit into either of the admissibility frameworks. With respect to the novel science framework, co-produced information fits into the criteria of testability, peer review, and standards with only a few problems, but would likely fail the general acceptance criterion of the test. However, if scientists are educated about co-production, or if it is possible to delineate a group of scientists who are more likely to accept co-production as the “relevant group,” then it may be possible for co-production to be admitted as evidence through the novel science framework. Turning to the oral history framework, co-produced information is less likely to be admitted because oral history is only a part, and not a necessary part, of co-produced information. As such, courts will likely be reluctant to bend the rules of evidence to admit it. Further research is needed to determine whether co-produced information can be admitted under the novel science framework.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel Science or Oral History? The Admissibility of Co-Produced Information in Canadian Courts\",\"authors\":\"D. Isaac\",\"doi\":\"10.29173/ALR2528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Co-production is an emerging source of information about the world, but it is one that has not been adequately theorized in the legal literature. Because co-production contains aspects of both novel science and oral history, it is not clear how it can be admitted. I argue that coproduced information does not clearly fit into either of the admissibility frameworks. With respect to the novel science framework, co-produced information fits into the criteria of testability, peer review, and standards with only a few problems, but would likely fail the general acceptance criterion of the test. However, if scientists are educated about co-production, or if it is possible to delineate a group of scientists who are more likely to accept co-production as the “relevant group,” then it may be possible for co-production to be admitted as evidence through the novel science framework. Turning to the oral history framework, co-produced information is less likely to be admitted because oral history is only a part, and not a necessary part, of co-produced information. As such, courts will likely be reluctant to bend the rules of evidence to admit it. Further research is needed to determine whether co-produced information can be admitted under the novel science framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2528\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

合作生产是一种新兴的关于世界的信息来源,但它在法律文献中还没有得到充分的理论化。因为合拍片既包含了新科学,也包含了口述历史,所以它如何被承认还不清楚。我认为,共同产生的信息并不明显适合任何一个可采性框架。关于新的科学框架,共同产生的信息符合可测试性、同行评审和标准的标准,只有少数问题,但可能无法通过测试的一般接受标准。然而,如果科学家们接受过关于合作生产的教育,或者如果有可能将一群更有可能接受合作生产的科学家描述为“相关群体”,那么通过新的科学框架,合作生产可能被承认为证据。转向口述历史框架,共同制作的信息不太可能被承认,因为口述历史只是共同制作信息的一部分,而不是必要的一部分。因此,法院很可能不愿意改变证据规则来承认这一点。需要进一步的研究来确定在新的科学框架下是否可以接受共同生产的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Novel Science or Oral History? The Admissibility of Co-Produced Information in Canadian Courts
Co-production is an emerging source of information about the world, but it is one that has not been adequately theorized in the legal literature. Because co-production contains aspects of both novel science and oral history, it is not clear how it can be admitted. I argue that coproduced information does not clearly fit into either of the admissibility frameworks. With respect to the novel science framework, co-produced information fits into the criteria of testability, peer review, and standards with only a few problems, but would likely fail the general acceptance criterion of the test. However, if scientists are educated about co-production, or if it is possible to delineate a group of scientists who are more likely to accept co-production as the “relevant group,” then it may be possible for co-production to be admitted as evidence through the novel science framework. Turning to the oral history framework, co-produced information is less likely to be admitted because oral history is only a part, and not a necessary part, of co-produced information. As such, courts will likely be reluctant to bend the rules of evidence to admit it. Further research is needed to determine whether co-produced information can be admitted under the novel science framework.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Canadian Challenges in Implementing the Kyoto Protocol: A Cause for Harmonization Principles of Kyoto and Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers Fundamental Aspects of Oil and Gas Revisited Coalbed Methane: Conventional Rules for an Unconventional Resource Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1