MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981152624

A Disappointing Look at the Future of Canadian Policing by the Law Commission

2007· article· en· W6981152624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Art, Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionStatus quoLaw reformWork (physics)Law enforcement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The title of the new report from the Law Commission of Canada, 'In Search of Security: The Future of Policing in Canada,' ought to attract a wide readership. Its elements commend the study to Canadian lawyers and the citizenry as we contemplate the contribution the police can make to the fabric of democracy. Unfortunately, the Law Commission will disappoint many in this publication. Its relatively uncritical acceptance of the status quo is discouraging and its mapping of the way forward is uninspired.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0330.012
Scholarly communication0.0170.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicArchitecture, Art, EducationFrench-language works237,207