The Police Executive and Governance: Adapting Police Leadership to an Increase in Oversight and Accountability in Police Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a democracy, it is generally understood that the police serve at the will of the people and are accountable through police governance. This usually consists of elected and/or appointed officials whose primary legal authority is to set policy and appoint the police leaders whom they hold accountable for ensuring that effective policing operations are carried out. It is widely held in common law jurisdictions that the governing body is limited in their role and cannot get involved in “operational policing issues.” In June 2010, the G20 world leaders’ conference was held in Toronto, Canada. The events surrounding the police actions during this conference caused a great deal of concern and led the Toronto Police Services Board, who are the governing authority for the Toronto Police Service, to commission a review to look at their own role. The findings in relation to “board” involvement in the operational side of policing challenged a long held belief regarding the limited role of governance in police operations. These findings will be examined in relation to the lack of board expertise and the challenges faced by police leaders to adapt and develop their attitudes, skills and abilities to respond to any expansion of governance authority.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".