Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Bonnie Mooney's ex-partner threatened and chased her, she went to the RCMP for help. After hearing her complaint against Ronald Kruska and reviewing Kruska's lengthy record of violent offences, Constable Andrichuk told Mooney there was little he could do. Rather than investigating, as required by a provincial domestic abuse policy, he advised her to stay in public places. Seven weeks later, Kruska broke into Mooney's isolated home with a shotgun, wounding Mooney's twelve-year-old daughter and killing a friend who was staying with Mooney. Mooney and her two daughters, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, sued Constable Andrichuk and the governments of British Columbia and Canada. Both the trial judge and the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the claim must fail, as causation could not be established. The author critiques these findings, and argues that it is coherent, principled, and necessary to find both duty of care and causation where police inaction allows domestic violence to continue. Drawing primarily on sources from Canada and the United Kingdom, she explores the extent of police liability, and the responsibility to protect particularly vulnerable individuals. The author argues that it is inappropriate to find that police never owe a duty of care to the public: a duty of care should depend on specific factual circumstances. She also argues that the traditional but for test for causation is not appropriate where inaction is the cause of the harm. Just as the material contribution test was developed to allow liability where causation was scientifically uncertain, a new test for causation should be developed where authorities fail to reduce a risk. The author concludes that imposing liability is necessary to deter police from abdicating their responsibility to protect.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".