MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198677971

RACIAL PROFILING AND THE PERILS OF ANCILLARY POLICE POWERS

2021· article· en· W3198677971 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry Skolnik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacial profilingHarmDistrustSupreme courtProportionality (law)Political scienceLawAccountabilityProfiling (computer programming)CriminologySociologyComputer scienceRace (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that the Supreme Court of Canada generally overlooks the reality of racial profiling when it creates or authorizes police powers. This oversight results in important problems. First, the Court does not adequately consider how racial profiling is a unique harm that breeds distrust of the police and of the justice system. Second, the Court does not impose sufficient oversight mechanisms that foster transparency and accountability. Third, when creating or authorizing police powers, the Court does not conduct a rigorous proportionality analysis that evaluates the harms of racial profiling. The article offers proposals to help address these problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.022
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207