Police use- of-force issues in Canada A . ARSeNAUlT ANd T . HINTON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overview Canada is a rather large multi-cultural country with a multitude of police agencies scattered throughout its vast width and breadth making the standardization of police use-of-force training difficult. The proliferation of social media sites though has shrunk the world so that we can all see how police are performing in the ‘global village’ while also exposing to Canadians how their own police officers utilize force, infrequently as that may be, in their own home towns. There are obvious ethical problems in this regard that are in need of addressing in keeping with Peelian1 Principles. The public will only remain supportive of those men and women in law enforcement if force to effect arrests is deemed to be both reasonable and necessary. Police departments, or ‘services’ as they are now prone to be called, face substantial community support issues as social media shines bright lights on back alleys patrolled by our watchdog police. Once-unblemished badges are being tarnished, largely through use-of-force issues. These problems arise from public perceptions about how and why police use force. Explained or not, the term ‘police brutality’ finds its way into the media by those who hold even the concept of police in disfavour. The police must be held accountable for the force used against the public hence the rise of intermediate weaponry and use-of-force models. These models attempt to train officers in proper use-of-force protocols while serving as guides in court in cases where use of force is an issue. It is impossible for any model to depict what an officer should do in every situation as physical altercations during arrests are too complicated, dynamic, and fluid to be depicted in a two-dimensional, static model. Some force used by police is unjustified because police officers are merely ordinary human beings doing an extraordinary, and often thankless, job. Police officers suffer from the same human frailties that everyone has and these can be largely corrected with proper training. Few occupations are attacked if they do something or if they fail to do something. It is hoped that more emphasis will resolve many use-of-force issues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".