MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070416982

Pepper in Our Eyes: The APEC Affair

2000· article· en· W7070416982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime ministerDemocracyGovernment (linguistics)TerrorismDozenPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In November 1997, the world media converged on Vancouver to cover the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. The major news story that emerged, however, had little to do with the crisis unfolding in the Asian economies. At the UBC campus, where the APEC leaders’ meeting was held, a predictable student protest met with an unusually strong police response. A crowd of students was pepper-sprayed, along with a CBC cameraman. The dramatic video footage of the incident that appeared on the evening news shocked Canadians. The use of noxious chemicals to attack non-violent protesters somehow seemed un-Canadian. It looked more like something that police and soldiers in less democratic countries would do. Other news stories developed. Two dozen law professors wrote to Prime Minister Chrétien to report that a number of serious constitutional violations that had taken place on campus. One protester, held for fourteen hours for displaying a sign saying “Free Speech,” initiated legal proceedings. Other lawsuits followed. The RCMP and the government of Canada were named as defendants, and a public inquiry was launched. A central issue was whether the Prime Minister’s officials gave orders of a political nature to the police that resulted in law-abiding citizens being assaulted and arrested. But why all the fuss? So what if the Prime Minister gave orders to the police? The contributors to Pepper in Our Eyes maintain that the “so what” question is of vital importance. The events at APEC raised serious questions about constitutional principle, the role of police in a democratic society, public accountability, and the effects of globalization on rights and politics. The contributors, experts in a variety of fields, draw upon their knowledge to explain – in plain English – the background issues and the values at stake. Some of the authors, such as Gerald Morin, chair of the first RCMP Public Complaints Commission, and CBC journalist Terry Milewski, had a direct connection with the APEC affair. By getting at the fundamental issues behind the APEC affair, Pepper in Our Eyes seeks to raise our civic consciousness. It shows that there was much more at stake that day than the questionable use of pepper spray. [From UBC Press | Pepper in Our Eyes - The APEC Affair, Edited by W. Wesley Pue]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207