Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hughes on this occasion however raise a number of large issues that only rarely come before formal inquiries.The matter known in Canada as "the APEC affair," and Commissioner Hughes' APEC report ("Hughes Report") focus on allegations of wrongdoing by the police and the Prime Minister of Canada at the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Conference held in Vancouver in November 1997.2The particular allegations, which have dominated the House of Commons and Canadian political life on several occasions, will be addressed in a moment.First, however, it is worth pausing briefly to consider some fundamental principles concerning police and politicians.II.POLICE MATTER Canadians tend to be strongly supportive of their police.Police officers have an obviously difficult job that involves them in many difficult, unpleasant, and even dangerous duties.They are the individuals to whom we look first when property losses or accidents occur or when danger threatens.Their role in law enforcement and in preserving "peace, order, and good government" is widely appreciated.The police officer as "helper" is an image that most of us accept.Most Canadians teach their children to turn to police officers for help when they need it.Images of "police as helpers" have remarkable strength.They are so strong, in fact, that they often obscure another equally important aspect of policing.Police may be helpers, but they also constitute a highly organized, armed force.As such, they are dangerous.Most of their important operational decisions are made in secret, invisibly, beyond public scrutiny.They exercise immense discretion in deciding when, how, and against whom to apply the law (think of the last time you were caught speeding).Their power is naked.It includes surveillance, use of force, handcuffing, arrest, and confinement.Only rarely, however, is police power subjected to critical scrutiny.2 The APEC affair is discussed in W.W. Pue, ed., Pepper in Our Eyes: TheAPECAffair (Vancouver:
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
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".