Ontario's Bill 175 on Policing: Improved Accountability but Lagging Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| 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".