MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W10885606 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2012.3.2.1

Policing Aboriginal Protests and Confrontations: Some Policy Recommendations

2012· article· en· W10885606 on OpenAlex
Edward J. Hedican

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationNegotiationRealmGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceOfficerLawOrder (exchange)IndigenousPublic administrationCriminologySociologyPublic relationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the role of police forces in Aboriginal protests and confrontations. It takes as a case study the Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry, which was released on May 31, 2007. In 1995 Dudley George, a member of the Stoney Point First Nation, was shot by an Ontario Provincial Police officer during a protest at Ipperwash Provincial Park. Five recommendations are proposed in this paper to reduce the inherent tensions in such protests, focusing on methods of mediation and conflict resolution. In particular, it is proposed that during such protests a more extensive use be made of Aboriginal persons with training and skills in mediation and negotiations in order to improve communication between police and First Nations protesters. It is also evident that government officials need to become more actively involved in resolving land claims, especially before they become flashpoints for violence, and to remove such disputes from the realm of criminal activity to matters of civil litigation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.420 · 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