The Ipperwash Inquiry - Symposium on Government/Police Relations: Legal Sites of Executive-Police Relations: Core Principles in a Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of the multiple sites where the governance of police in a democratic society is negotiated, with examples and solutions drawn from policy documents, public inquiries, legislation, and case law. Multiple factors bear on the ways that this intricately structured legal relationship is worked out in day-to-day situations, including political, institutional and legal influences. Bearing in mind the political and institutional contexts, this chapter examine the legal instruments and institutions that both structure the relationship and are part of resolving the inevitable conflicts that arise between these two very general concepts. The central argument is that these relationships have evolved in various ways into a partnership, negotiated daily at various sites within the legal and constitutional systems.\nMany of these negotiations take place informally and out of public view while others are managed by the courts in individual cases. Issues only occasionally emerge as a matter of public concern and are usually perceived as an aberration or ‘crisis’. These crises can be identified in individual contexts, for example in Charter motions in criminal cases, or in civil law suits against the police, and in institutional settings, often precipitated by media controversy. The minority generate sufficient challenge to legitimacy that special responses evolve or are called upon: such as legislative change and new modes of civilian review; and Public Inquiries, often driven by community and media pressures. In all cases, it is argued, better outcomes would be achieved if both police actors and judicial and political decision makers were better informed about the history of the relationship and the reasons for doctrines.\nThese arguments are made with the use of examples from police services across the country, including the RCMP, and a case study of the governance of the Toronto Police service, to demonstrate how police are actually regulated, and the ways that the theory of accountability to the rule of law operates at different sites.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".