MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097386617

Implications of Board Motions Relating to Contact Cards and Quarterly

2012· article· en· W7097386617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityCivil libertiesHarassmentLegislatureHuman rightsPromotion (chess)Bill of rightsCivil rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is a national organization with thousands of supporters drawn from all walks of life. The CCLA was constituted to promote respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and civil liberties and to defend and foster the recognition of those rights and liberties. The CCLA’s major objectives include the promotion and legal protection of individual freedom and dignity against unreasonable invasion by public authority, and the protection of procedural fairness. For almost 50 years, the CCLA has worked to advance these goals, regularly appearing before legislative bodies and all levels of court. It is in this capacity, as a defender of constitutional rights and an advocate for the rights and liberties of all individuals, that we make submissions to the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) with respect to the difficult problem of race-based harassment (commonly known as “racial profiling). CCLA continues to be concerned about race-based harassment. Race-based harassment is generally defined as including any or a combination of any of the following actions by police against black male youth and/or others from racialized and/or marginalized communities: unwarranted – questioning, stops, identity collection, intimidation, searching, and aggression. Race-based harassment is unacceptable in a society committed to equality before the law. While

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.337 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207