Special Forum on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan (February 2010): Military Police Complaints Commission Documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present page is intended to mirror the public documentation made available on the web page for the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearing (APIH) of Canada’s Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC). All hyperlinks connect to documents on the MPCC website. Court orders and judgments related to the Afghan detainee transfer question, including two challenges to the MPCC proceedings from the Government of Canada, can be viewed here.\nThe following MPCC-composed text introduces the documents:\nOn March 12, 2008, the Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) directed that the investigation into the complaints lodged by Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (AIC–BCCLA) move to a public hearing process. This was required following the delays and difficulties to obtain relevant documents and information from government authorities.\nOn February 26, 2007, the MPCC had announced the launching a public interest investigation into a complaint regarding the transfer of detainees by Military Police in Afghanistan. This decision related to a joint AIC–BCCLA complaint letter received on February 21, 2007. In the complaint, it was alleged that the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and unidentified members of the CF Military Police, on at least 18 occasions transferred detainees to Afghan authorities notwithstanding alleged evidence that there was likelihood they would be tortured.\nThe following documents are in reverse chronological order, beginning with the February 11, 2007, Complaint of Amnesty International (Canada) and the BC Civil Liberties Association:
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.205 | 0.104 |
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".