MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Policing: Fundamental principles in a <scp>C</scp>anadian context

2012· article· en· W2130091585 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Law enforcementService (business)Work (physics)Political sciencePublic relationsEnforcementDemocracyBusinessPublic administrationLawLaw and economicsSociologyPoliticsEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article provides an introduction to the place of C anada's police in the public service. It identifies what makes C anada's police services distinct from other parts of the public service, considers the principles under which policing is expected to operate in democratic systems, and reviews current policing challenges. Public understanding of police and police work may not be accurate, since perceptions may be overly influenced by fictional depictions of law enforcement and by police themselves. Incomplete understandings can influence public policy making, including funding decisions, to the detriment of good policing. Finally, the article observes that there may be insufficient research on policing given its aggregate cost and importance to a successful civil society.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.245 · 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