Faire Basculer Le Climat De Profilage Social À Ottawa : Le Programme De Contestation Des Contraventions (The Ottawa Ticket Defence Program: Using Legal Advocacy to Challenge the Social Profiling of Street-Involved People )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans la region d’Ottawa, le Programme de contestation des contraventions (ci-apres appele le PCC) offre des services de representation juridique aux personnes en situation d’itinerance qui ont censement commis des infractions reglementaires. Les personnes qui se prevalent du PCC subissent du profilage social sous la forme d’avis d’infraction emis en vertu de diverses lois provinciales et de divers reglements municipaux, notamment la Loi de 1999 sur la securite dans les rues, pour des motifs relies a l’occupation de l’espace public. Meme si le PCC a eu du succes en aidant les personnes utilisatrices a regler ces proces-verbaux de contravention (aussi communement appele « avis d’infraction » ou « contravention »), l’entree en vigueur de la Loi sur l’acces a la justice de l’Ontario a force le PCC a cesser ses activites. Cependant, a l’automne 2014, le programme a ete relance a la Section de common law de la Faculte de droit, de l’Universite d’Ottawa. English Abstract: The Ticket Defence Program (TDP) has since 2003 offered free representation to street-involved people experiencing social profiling in the Ottawa region. Its service users are homeless or street-involved people who have received provincial and municipal offences for income-generation activities such as panhandling as well as other activities associated with life on the street. While forced to cease operations as a result of new regulations around the provision of legal services in Ontario, TDP re-emerged as the Programme de contestation des contraventions in 2014, a campus-community partnership offering free legal services and representation in French and in English for provincial and municipal offences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".