MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992527598

L'intimidation envers les policiers du Québec

2011· report· fr· W6992527598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2011
Typereport
Languagefr
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeContext (archaeology)Consequentialism
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, le problème des actes d’intimidation commis envers les intervenants associés au système de justice est suffisamment préoccupant pour que soit créé, en 2001, le Plan de lutte contre l’intimidation (PLI). Les connaissances sur le phénomène étant limitées, le mandat de mener une étude sur le sujet nous a été confié par le ministère de la Sécurité publique du Québec. Réalisée grâce à la contribution financière du ministère de la Sécurité publique du Canada, cette recherche porte spécifiquement sur les policiers du Québec. Les résultats sont issus de l’analyse de la base de données du PLI ainsi que de sondages rejoignant 2438 policiers pour la première phase et 677 pour la seconde dont parmi ces derniers, 283 ont subi des actes d’intimidation. Un diagnostic se dégage des résultats : nous ne sommes pas devant un seul problème d'intimidation, mais bien de deux problèmes différents. Le premier est le plus évident : il est causé par les actes graves d'intimidation qui ont un impact réel. Le deuxième est quantitativement plus important, mais il renvoie à des faits de moindre de gravité.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)French-language works237,207