Identifying the necessary components of a police decision-making model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As police officers are entrusted with significant amounts of discretion and power in instances potentially involving arrest, use of force, search, and seizure, their decisions have serious consequences. Yet, very little research has been conducted into police officer thinking and decision-making. The objective of this research was to identify the necessary components of a decision-making model which can be used to prepare police officers to appropriately exercise their discretion when dealing with ambiguous, time-pressured, and consequential situations. The research on critical thinking (CT) and decision-making in policing was reviewed and supplemented with research from related disciplines. Multiple decision-making models were identified, discussed, and compared. The recognition/metacognition (R/M) model developed by Cohen, Freeman, and Thompson (1998) was identified as potentially adaptable for use in policing. As CT is considered best learned in domain specific environments, the police context for decision-making must be explored. A multimethod study was designed and conducted. Frontline police officers were the focus as they are particularly impacted by time, access to information, and stress effects. Responses to Critical Incident Analysis Interviews were combined with findings from the literature, to prepare a questionnaire. Canadian police services were contacted and invited to participate in a survey of frontline police decision-making. The services which agreed to participate forwarded the invitation to frontline police personnel. Respondents provided their information through an online survey. The sampling was non-random, as self-selection occurred at the service and individual levels. The results indicated that a model of police decision-making should include recognition and metacognition components taught through a domain specific approach. The five identified themes of: information, safety, planning, respite, and articulation should be used for scenario creation. A Recognition-CT Police Decision-Making Model is proposed. The information collected was detailed and rich, but cannot be confidently stated to be representative of all Canadian police officers, and while having many strengths, qualitative studies can also be prone to researcher bias. Even with these caveats, this research provides important information to improve our understanding of the complex and ambiguous environment in which police decision-making occurs. Suggestions for future research on police decision-making and the role of CT are also discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».