Policing the homeless in Montreal: is this really what the population wants?
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Science and technology studies
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.479
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Since the 1990s in Montreal, the implementation of community policing and the enforcement of anti-disorder programmes has had dramatic consequences on the homeless. Relying on empirical evidence from fieldwork conducted between 2005 and 2007, I examine the police contention that disorder policing is justified because it is based on a community consensus. Analysing how the Montreal police measured the citizens’ needs, I show that what the community wants is not clear and that there is no evidence in police data that citizens demanded such interventions. I then make a post-structural argument suggesting that the police created a self-fulfilling prophecy based on a perception of what the community wants. Such a perception does not reflect an expressed and quantified desire from the population in general. It is more in line with the demands of certain interest groups of that community and is shaped by the police bureaucratic reward structure and mission.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Policing & Society
- Topic
- Homelessness and Social Issues
- Field
- Health Professions
- Canadian institutions
- University of Ottawa
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Community policingArgument (complex analysis)BureaucracyCriminologyPerceptionLaw enforcementPopulationEnforcementPsychological interventionSociologyEmpirical evidencePolitical sciencePublic relationsSocial psychologyPsychologyLawPolitics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes