Transforming Campus Safety: Policing and Community Engagement at the University of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an account of the organization and transformation of campus policing at the University of Toronto, with the aim to 1) evaluate how the institution now known as the office of Campus Safety has evolved over time in dialogue with sociolegal forces and relations, and to 2) consider how it might continue to transform over time in line with calls for community engagement and social justice. We contextualize the contemporary structures and conditions of Campus Safety at the UofT with an analysis of the institutional history of campus policing in North America/Turtle Island and the UK. Based on literature reviews and interviews with students and Campus Safety administrators and officers, we examine key issues shaping perspectives on and practices of campus police, specifically 1) responding to community members experiencing mental health crises; 2) addressing gender-based violence and sexual violence, and 3) ongoing concerns about systemic racism, social inequality, and discrimination. We also examine how the politics of our current historical moment manifest in the Cops Off Campus movement, and consider various points of view regarding defunding, detasking, demilitarizing, or abolishing police organizations, including campus police.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".