Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research on the policing of labour disputes suggests that there have been substantial historical changes in policing practices and policies in North America and Europe. Much of the literature points to a postwar movement from reactive policing grounded in the threat and use of force to a more preventive consent-based approach which relies on communication, negotiation and self-policing. At the same time, there have been conflicting reports of increased use of police force and confrontation with labour in some countries such as Britain, while police actions in a number of recent anti-globalization protests in Canada, the United States and Europe have demonstrated readiness of the police to use substantial force in certain public disorder situations. These developments speak to the need to examine more fully the ways in which the police construct their role and the role of labour unions in labour strikes and public protests. Based on interviews with police in 38 different cities and 10 provincial jurisdictions across Canada, this article looks at the ways in which the police understand and implement policies in strike and protest situations. It is argued that the police in most services have constructed a minimalist role for themselves in "normal" strike and protest situations which is grounded in processes of responsibilization, flexible policing and privatization. As they understand most situations, the "best way" to maintain order is to limit the show and use of force, while relying on negotiation and persuasion to resolve conflicts, and civil court or labour board proceedings and the threat of court imposed fines. At the same time, in contexts where the police perceive a clear threat to public interest or safety, in particular when unions or more typically other radical groups refuse to play by the rules of the game, police thinking shifts markedly to the view that extraordinary force is necessary and justified both to prevent and control public disorder.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".