Nearly Twenty Years On: The Canadian Police Executive Community Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Between 2000 and 2001, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police published two studies on Canadian police executives. One was a profile of the police executive population, which was described as ‘…middle-aged, overwhelmingly male, somewhat conservative in outlook, practical in approach, and stable in habits… [but with] ambition, energy and application’. Such chiefs could be expected to spend a few uneventful years at the top before fading into much anticipated retirement. The second study (Biro, F., Campbell, P., McKenna, P., and Murray, T. (2000). Police Executives under Pressure: A Study and Discussion of the Issues. Study Series No.3. Ottawa: Police Futures Group, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police) shows, however, taking charge at the top plunged more than 15% of them into a period of professional and personal turmoil that led to premature termination of their careers. The examination of a sample of the new generation of Canadian police executives and a comparison with the first group against the backdrop of 20 years of social change suggests that the second group is better educated and developed as leaders, more confident, better communicators, and more politically astute. They are also more diverse but not nearly enough, although there is a growing number of non-sworn leaders, with potential to change future policing dynamics and culture. Despite the challenges of rapid social change, the new leaders have avoided the turmoil their predecessors experienced. This may be because they are dealing with operational challenges for which they are well equipped rather than the fundamental structural and cultural transformation in which the first group participated and which brought more change to policing in 30 years than in all the history of Canadian policing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".