“The Big Smoke” Screen: Toronto’s G20 Protests, Police Brutality, and the Unaccountability of Public Officials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The G8 and G20 summits took place in Huntsville and Toronto, Ontario, Canada on 25-26 and 26-27 June 2010 respectively. Summits such as these often have large budgets attached to them and attract protests from people with various political leanings deploying a diversity of tactics, and these particular summits were no exception. In this article, we contrast official and media accounts of the protest and the policing of the events with a narrative grounded in protestors’ experience, in an attempt to complicate present popular understandings of these protests. In the discussion section of the article we provide theoretical and analytic insights into what the events of last summer can tell us about organizing and policing dissent. Le sommets du G8 et du G20 se sont tenus à Huntsville et Toronto, Ontario, Canada le 25-26 et 26-27 juin 2010 respectivement. Les sommets comme ceux-ci ont généralement des budgets importants et attirent des manifestations organisées par des individus avec des tendances politiques multiples, utilisant des stratégies diverses. Ces sommets ne font pas exception. Dans cet article, nous contrastons les descriptions des manifestations et du comportement de la police par les sources officielles et les médias, avec les récits issus de l’expérience des manifestants, dans un souci de complexifier la compréhension populaire des ces manifestations. Nous offrons des contributions théoriques et analytiques pour comprendre ce que les événements de l’été dernier peuvent nous dire à propos de l’organisation et le contrôle de la contestation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".