MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774724821

Ontario's Bill 175 on Policing: Improved Accountability but Lagging Governance

2017· article· en· W2774724821 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityJurisdictionCorporate governanceIndependence (probability theory)Political scienceCommunity policingCriminal justiceLaggingPublic administrationUnit (ring theory)LawPolice scienceCriminologyBusinessSociologyPsychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This short paper examines Ontario's Bill 175 on policing. Bill 175 would implement many of the recommendations made by Justice Tulloch in his Independent Police Oversight Review including the mandatory publication of redacted investigative reports by the Special Investigations Unit in cases of police involved deaths and serious injuries that do not result in criminal charges. It raises concerns, however, the the police complaints body may be overwhelmed with the investigation of all complaints against the police and that it may have less resources for systemic reviews and that it would lose jurisdiction over complaints about policing policing. It also concludes that Bill 175 would codify an overbroad definition of police independence from governmental direction and that the enhanced accountability that Bill 175 could promote will place increased pressure on police governance and build enhanced expectations about the changes that better police oversight will make to policing. It proposes the creation of community advisory groups better to link those who review and govern the police with racialized and Indigenous communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207