MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387222387 · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.87b746d1

“Giving the Highest Chance of a Good Outcome”: Exploring the Missing Persons Act in British Columbia and Ontario from the Policing Perspective

2023· preprint· en· W4387222387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorna Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueCrimRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPerspective (graphical)Work (physics)Missing dataStandardizationPerceptionPublic relationsPolitical scienceCriminologyPsychologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Columbia and Ontario are two of the Canadian provinces and territories that have enacted a Missing Persons Act, legislation aimed at improving the police investigation of missing person cases. Understanding the Acts in these regions from the policing perspective presents an opportunity to assess their efficacy and utility. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to examine police perceptions of and experiences with the Missing Persons Act in each region. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with police officers from over twenty services across these regions, this article explores police insights on the impacts, challenges, and benefits of the Acts related to missing persons work. Additionally, police support for and perceptions of this legislation are uncovered. Results show that police view that the Acts in these regions have enhanced missing persons work through standardization and strengthening abilities to obtain information and records, follow various leads, and use technologies that assist in successfully locating missing people. However, a paradox emerged: police are reluctant to make use of this legislation. Explanations for this and the implications of these findings are discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrimRxivSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207