MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214763222

The 2017 Moncton Canada Labour Code Trial and the Future of the RCMP

2019· article· fr· W3214763222 on OpenAlex
Greg Marquis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Brunswick Studies / Revue d’études sur le Nouveau-Brunswick · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)VictoryCode (set theory)Political scienceRank (graph theory)LawComputer scienceHistoryMedicinePoliticsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The killing of three and the wounding of two Mounties in Moncton in 2014 by a lone shooter led to the RCMP being charged under the Canada Labour Code for failing to adequately train, equip, and protect its members from foreseeable risk. This article analyzes the 2017 prosecution within the context of recent controversies involving the RCMP, its roles in New Brunswick, and the issue of the unionization of the rank and file. The trial’s outcome was interpreted as a victory for the lower ranks and legitimized the argument that Mounties on patrol across Canada needed heavier weaponry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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