MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982438324

Improving public safety through technology: The past, present, and future of electronic monitoring in Canada

2017· article· en· W6982438324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmStatutory lawPrisonCriminal justicePosition (finance)Economic Justice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual predators who target strangers cause great harm to individuals, families, and the community, and generate considerable fear. There is a robust legal regime in place to manage Dangerous Offenders and Long Term Offenders, including supervision by parole officers and access to electronic monitoring. However, the legal tools and capacity to manage offenders who reach their “Warrant Expiry Date” (“WED”) after failing to qualify for parole or statutory release are limited to recognizances under section 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code and ad hoc monitoring by police. Modern Global Position Satellite (GPS) based electronic monitoring (EM) provides a cost-effective opportunity to improve the supervision of predatory offenders released at the end of their prison sentences and can increase public safety.\n\nThis Major Paper explores the legal regime to manage dangerous, long term, and WED prisoners, and profiles WED offenders, examines the history and features of EM technology, as well as its use internationally, and summarizes the research on the efficacy of EM. Further, this Major Paper considers current and future uses of GPS-based EM for crime solving, as an alternative to detention in appropriate cases pending trial, to prevent terrorism, and in forensic psychiatry. This Major Paper also explores the use of EM outside the criminal justice system, such as for those suffering from cognitive disorders who “wander.” Finally, this Major Paper makes several recommendations to increase the use of EM for sexual predators in well-designed, evidence-based studies, and concludes that this can be done in a cost-effective manner that balances privacy rights with legitimate public safety goals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207