The evolution and alignment of RCMP conflict management and organizational surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the evolution of organizational conflict management within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police throughout the last three decades. Since the governance of conflicts is an important aspect of public policing, this study explores the interrelationships between broader philosophical shifts in public policing vis-à-vis this evolution. Moreover, since philosophies of public policing are intimately related to broader philosophies of government, this analysis is located within the broader context of Canadian governmental transformation. Both epistemologically and ontologically, this dissertation is primarily concerned with how rationalities of western liberal government evolve. It principally draws from academic studies that trace various aspects of this evolution, from the Classical liberal period, through the rise and fall of the Welfare State, to the more recent development of Neo-liberalism. By additionally drawing from the academic literatures on policing, organizational police management, and organizational management more broadly, this study significantly contributes to our understanding of western governmental evolution by looking at how the management of organizational conflicts within the RCMP aligns with broader philosophical transformations in these spheres. Moreover, this dissertation contributes to our understanding of how the surveillance of organizational conflicts interrelates, evolves, and aligns with these broader philosophical trends. Ultimately, this dissertation develops a preliminary theory of alignment from an analysis of how the management and surveillance of organizational conflicts evolves within the RCMP. Furthermore, conclusions are drawn in relation to an existing, although underdeveloped, hypothesis of how surveillance within western police organizations transforms. This thesis also draws conclusions on how individual “mindsets” are (re)colonized by broader managerial and governmental rationalities. Finally, the implications of this study on future academic exploration, as well as normative policy development, are briefly discussed.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".