Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of Dianne Martin's last academic projects was to help organize a .symposium and contribute a chapter to a book devoted to the question of police-government relations and the debates concerning police independence and police accountability.1 In recent years, a number of commissions of inquiry have had occasion to examine and consider the police commissioner-police minister relationship in some detail in connection to particular incidents or allegations of impropriety. In earlier essays, I have reviewed the relationship the between the commissioner of the RCMP and the federal government during the last forty years of the twentieth-century2, and the relationships between police commissioners and ministers in Australia, New Zealand, Metropolitan London.3 In this essay, I examine the relationship between and two former Canadian police commissioners and their respective governments. In doing so, I seek to get beyond broad generalizations about such relationships, and examine more closely some of the details of them. How do such relationships play out on a day to day basis? To what extent do they vary, and if they do, how and why? What is the nature, extent, and typical content of communications between police commissioners and their ministers? What relationships do police commissioners have with other ministers, the premier or prime minister, or the cabinet as a group? How does a crisis or a very politically sensitive, high-profile case impact upon or change such relationships? The data on which this analysis is based consist of the transcripts of hearings of two very recent commissions of inquiry in Canada (the Ipperwash Inquiry and the Arar Commission), and of the public hearings of the House of Commans Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in September and December 2006.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.008 |
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".