MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528653986 · doi:10.29173/alr441

To Serve and Protect Whom? Proximity in Cases of Police Failure to Protect

2016· article· en· W2528653986 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Erika Chamberlain

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsStatutory lawPlaintiffDutyContext (archaeology)Duty of careLawOrder (exchange)BusinessDuty to protectPolitical scienceCommon lawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the duty of care owed by police to potential victims of crime, focusingspecifically on the issue of proximity. The author surveys both Canadian and UK cases inorder to examine the factors that potentially give rise to a special relationship in thesecircumstances, and compares the Canadian courts’ more plaintiff-friendly approach to theEnglish courts’ persistent refusal to recognize proximity in the relationship between thepolice and victims of crime. The case law is then analyzed in order to shed light on the utilityand content of the proximity requirement for the duty of care, taking into consideration thefactual context, statutory framework, and policy considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207