MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802268985 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-10852

The Expansion of Conducted Energy Weapon Use in Ontario: Pacification and Policy Development

2015· dissertation· en· W2802268985 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erick Laming

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersTennessee Valley AuthorityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)AccountabilityPublic administrationSoftware deploymentOrder (exchange)BusinessGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsService (business)Political scienceEngineeringFinanceSociologyLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the Ontario government's decision to allow for the expansion of Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs) to all front-line police officers. I utilize a framework of pacification strategies that illustrate the way in which police services, particularly the Ottawa Police Service, should implement a CEW policy for the deployment of the weapon in order to achieve effective police-community partnerships. The decision to expand CEWs demonstrates an abdication of responsibility on the part of the province to local police agencies and the new policy provides little guidance. It is important that local agencies develop strong and effective CEW policies for the purpose of enhancing public and police safety as well as ensuring meaningful accountability in Ontario. I analyze several provincial and agency CEW guidelines in order to facilitate the development of effective CEW guidelines at the agency level and, importantly, to ensure accountability for when these weapons are deployed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207