Bibliographic record
Abstract
Police “operational independence” is an overbroad and confusing term. Moreover, the idea that those who govern the police have no role in anything that can be characterized as police operations was significantly to blame for the policing failures that led to the use of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to clear the Ottawa occupation. The first part of this article examines the origins and meaning of police independence. It suggests that there is a growing consensus on limiting the ambit of police independence to the exercise of law enforcement discretion. The second part examines the juridical statute of police independence. It concludes that police independence limited to law enforcement discretion is an important constitutional principle and principle of fundamental justice. The third part argues for the codification of such limited law enforcement police independence in all Canadian policing acts. The Ottawa policing failures demonstrates that Justices Morden’s and Epstein’s attempts to limit the ambit of police operational in Ontario legislation have not been successful. Clear legislative definition of police independence as only applying to law enforcement decisions such as those relating to investigations, arrests and prosecutions is necessary
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".