A call to modernize police accountability: an evaluation of the law’s response to excess use of force by police in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a police officer exercises their statutory authority to use force against a member of society, and that force results in death, the public must have confidence that the police acted legitimately. The inquiry this thesis facilitates examines current police oversight law that purports to hold police accountable in circumstances of police-involved death in British Columbia. The research is motivated by two assertions: 1. The government’s response to reform the investigatory and legal processes for the determination of allegations of police-involved death is inadequate; the resulting police oversight regime is too complex, and fails to act in the public interest. 2. Oversight and law enforcement agencies limit access to the information required for families and the public to understand the circumstances of, and to fairly assess, alleged police-involved death. While this research does not anticipate a singular resolution to the complex and longstanding questions of police accountability in BC, it draws attention to an unresolved history of police un-accountability as a matter of public interest. Due to the complex nature of the legal framework, this research does not identify an exhaustive list of issues within policing law.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".