Balancing Police Independence and Political Responsibility for the Police: Some Recent Developments in Australia, Canada, and the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a need for balance between respecting the independence of the police to make law enforcement decisions in individual cases while allowing and indeed encouraging many other forms of legitimate political direction of the police. This article will argue that legislative reform should codify a minimal definition of police independence that would produce narrower definitions of police independence than found in recent policing legislation enacted in Australia and Canada and clearer standards than found either in the common law or the Policing Protocol Order, 2011 used in England. In addition, it suggests that Police Acts should encourage transparent political direction of the police by requiring such direction to be in writing and to be made public. It will be suggested that Victoria’s Police Service Act, 2013 and Ontario’s new Police Act, 2018 achieve some, but not all, of these objectives.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".