Mobsters, Mounties, and Canadian Governmental Responses to Organized Crime, 1965–67
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to its secretive nature and propensity to spread if left unchecked, organized crime bedeviled politicians and law enforcement officials in North America. The popular mythology surrounding the gangster and mobster betrayed the harsh realities of illicit business activities geared towards exploitive profit. Canada was slow to appreciate that career criminals connected to mafia syndicates from the United States and their home-grown accomplices were present and active during the 1960s. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police/Gendarmerie royale du Canada took the lead in criminal intelligence and maintained close relations with American law enforcement counterparts at the federal level. Separate efforts in Quebec focused on investigation towards prosecution, pushed by a tough-on-crime justice minister. The two approaches towards the problem came up in discussions between federal and provincial authorities during meetings in July 1965 and January 1966, interspersed by a federal election that returned a Liberal minority government to power. This article argues that the federal government’s preference for a modest law enforcement solution stymied real progress and instead served political expediency to dodge a demanded royal commission. Organized crime continued to flourish despite governmental efforts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".