Ending the Erasure?: Writing Race into the Story of Psychological Detentions – Examining R. v. Le
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When does a police detention begin? In various instances, the answer to this question may be entirely obscure but nevertheless consequential to one’s constitutional rights and the admission of evidence. Even in the absence of circumstances where police officers employ physical restraint, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that law enforcement officials may nevertheless “psychologically detain” an individual. Specifically, a reasonable person may believe that they are simply unable to walk away from a police-initiated encounter and are compelled to respond to questioning. Due possibly to a sense of coercion, this perceived inability may arise even where the detention is or appears arbitrary. Such interactions beg certain questions. How does one construct the “reasonable person” in police-initiated encounters? With what characteristics are they imbued? Because many encounters transpire between police officers and racialized individuals, should the person’s ethnicity or racial background be a constitutive characteristic of the reasonable person?
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".