MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W598423153 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1058

Organizing for Accountability: Community Legal Clinics and Police Complaints

2001· article· en· W598423153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irina Ceric

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAccountabilityCriminologyPolitical scienceBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article donne un bref aperqu des debuts et de l'6volution des m6canismes ontariens de traitement des plaintes contre la police et d6crit sommairement la proc6dure actuelle, pour s'6tendre ensuite sur ses lacunes.L'auteur y traite du r6le d'une clinique juridique communautaire dans la promotion des droits et d'une r6forme h cet 6gard.Elle examine les nouvelles strat6gies de droit en mati~re de mauvaise conduite policiire, de meme que les anciennes, et explique comment les cliniques pourraient contribuer A une r6forme de la police et A l'ducation juridique de la population en vue d'am6liorer la proc6dure de traitement des plaintes. I.4.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207