MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890829049 · doi:10.1093/police/pay062

Police Chiefs and Their Political Bosses: Discussions in Ontario

2018· article· en· W2890829049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip Stenning

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing A Journal of Policy and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceAccountabilityPolice sciencePoliticsPublic administrationIndependence (probability theory)LawCorporate governancePeriod (music)CriminologySociologyCriminal justiceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, I review debates about relations between police chiefs and their governing authorities in Ontario over the last 70 years, beginning with the enactment of the Ontario Police Act in 1946, through its replacement by the Ontario Police Services Act in 1990, to the enactment of a new Police Services Act in 2018. I discuss how the respective roles and responsibilities of municipal and regional police chiefs and their police governing authorities, and the relationships between them, have evolved and changed over this period. I also discuss comparable developments in the relations between commissioners of the Ontario Provincial Police and provincial ministers responsible for policing in the province during the same period. The arguments and justifications that have been advanced for these developments by politicians, commissions of inquiry, police scholars, and representative bodies of police chiefs and police governing authorities, as well as in key court decisions, are reviewed, and their implications for the concept of ‘police independence’ are discussed. I conclude that although that concept has been the subject of much critique during these years, it so far remains intact as the key principle underlying police governance and accountability in Ontario.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicing A Journal of Policy and PracticeSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207