Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 1997, the world media converged on Vancouver to cover the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. The major news story that emerged, however, had little to do with the crisis unfolding in the Asian economies. At the UBC campus, where the APEC leaders’ meeting was held, a predictable student protest met with an unusually strong police response. A crowd of students was pepper-sprayed, along with a CBC cameraman. The dramatic video footage of the incident that appeared on the evening news shocked Canadians. The use of noxious chemicals to attack non-violent protesters somehow seemed un-Canadian. It looked more like something that police and soldiers in less democratic countries would do. Other news stories developed. Two dozen law professors wrote to Prime Minister Chrétien to report that a number of serious constitutional violations that had taken place on campus. One protester, held for fourteen hours for displaying a sign saying “Free Speech,” initiated legal proceedings. Other lawsuits followed. The RCMP and the government of Canada were named as defendants, and a public inquiry was launched. A central issue was whether the Prime Minister’s officials gave orders of a political nature to the police that resulted in law-abiding citizens being assaulted and arrested. But why all the fuss? So what if the Prime Minister gave orders to the police? The contributors to Pepper in Our Eyes maintain that the “so what” question is of vital importance. The events at APEC raised serious questions about constitutional principle, the role of police in a democratic society, public accountability, and the effects of globalization on rights and politics. The contributors, experts in a variety of fields, draw upon their knowledge to explain – in plain English – the background issues and the values at stake. Some of the authors, such as Gerald Morin, chair of the first RCMP Public Complaints Commission, and CBC journalist Terry Milewski, had a direct connection with the APEC affair. By getting at the fundamental issues behind the APEC affair, Pepper in Our Eyes seeks to raise our civic consciousness. It shows that there was much more at stake that day than the questionable use of pepper spray.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.198 | 0.052 |
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".