The Governance Deficit: Reflections on the Future of Public and Private Policing in Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing presence of private police in our society, and especially the fact that they perform many policing functions traditionally regarded as the preserve of public police, raises fundamental questions of police governance and accountability for a democratic society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. From the perspective of the rule of law and respect for human rights, this article argues that it is unacceptable that while the public police (at least in theory) are governed by and accountable to democratically elected governmental authority and to the public, private police officers performing the same policing functions as their public police counterparts are not subject to the same form of democratic governance and accountability. Given existing federal and provincial human rights legislation in Canada, and the recent extension of federal privacy and access legislation to the private sector, there would seem to be no insurmountable jurisdictional or constitutional obstacle to extending the notion of a code of conduct incorporating human rights to the private security sector, insofar as they are involved in the exercise of the police powers of investigation, detention, arrest, the gathering and sharing of personal information, and so on. Such a development would constitute significant progress towards achieving comprehensive and effective democratic governance and accountability for both public and private policing in Canada.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it