Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTToronto Mayor Rob Ford has achieved a level of notoriety unique amongst Canadian politicians for his admissions of drug and alcohol use, and subsequent attempts to deflect media attention and public scrutiny. Due to these indiscretions and admissions, Toronto City Council voted to remove the mayor's emergency, executive and budgetary powers, and transfer official responsibility to Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly. These actions though were due to the lack of legal remedies to remove Ford formally from office.Conventional wisdom would suggest that Ford should not survive such revelations politically. Based upon police wiretap transcripts, even gang members believed that the threat of such exposure was sufficient to protect them from blowback. Yet Ford remained in office, for reasons unexplained by existing literature. We attempt to explain this lack of loss of legitimacy through the lens of Aristotle's notions of ethos, logos and pathos.Ultimately, the Ford conundrum has exposed the legal void created when politicians fail to abide by the moral dictates of the law. We suggest that legal remedies were not included within existing legislation, as its drafters never contemplated the possibility of such defiance. It was believed that such behaviour would either result in irreparable loss of political capital/support or that politicians would act honourably and resign. Whether due to naivete or ignorance, this demise of political honour now endangers the entire framework of public accountability. Accordingly, new and innovative measures are required to provide redress. We propose a process that combines traditional notions of moral responsibility, with the enactment of more formal legal remedies, to provide municipal governments with the power to remove individuals who threaten the integrity of our civic institutions, as a form of shared responsibility.Keywords: Rob Ford, Conflict of Interest Case, Ethics, Aristotle, Honour, Innovation.To the residents of Toronto, I know I have let you down. And I can't '/ do anything else but apologize and apologize and I'm so sorry...I ...I love my job. I love my job. I love this city, love saving taxpayers' money and I love being your mayor ...For the sake of the taxpayers of this great city -for the sake of the taxpayers -we must get back to work immediately...I ...I was elected to do a job and that's exactly what Fm going to continue doing (Rob Ford, as quoted in the Globe and Mail on November 5, 2013).Introduction and BackgroundToronto Mayor Rob Ford has achieved a level of notoriety unique amongst Canadian politicians. Elected as mayor in October 2010 on a platform of Respect for Taxpayers and Stopping the gravy train, Rob Ford rode a wave of popular support against waste and inefficiency in municipal operations. Ford garnered 47.1% support from across the city (CBC News, 2010; Alcoba, 2010), but particularly in the suburbs, adopting the moniker of 'Ford Nation' (it should also be noted that the slate of candidates for Mayor was one of the least appealing in Toronto's history). However, once elected and aided by his brother Doug Ford, who now represented Rob's former ward, and building a coalition of right wing and centrist support on Council, Mayor Ford was initially able to deliver upon his campaign promises to freeze property taxes, find efficiencies, cancel the Transit City public transit plan, and, according to some, 'fix the mess' left by the previous Miller administration.Over time however, the Mayor slowly began to bleed support on Council over several contentious issues. The first major issue involved redevelopment of the Toronto Port lands waterfront area. Under the auspices of a tri-government agency (Waterfront Toronto), slow progress was being made on remediating the former industrial lands and developing flood control for the Don River to allow new residential and commercial development. The Waterfront plan had been underway for 10 years, and had achieved broad community, government and business support. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".