Police officer performance appraisal systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constables, sergeants, and staff sergeants ( n =393) representing 15 municipal Canadian police departments completed a survey in which they reported about their organizations’ performance appraisal practices. In general, the officers’ responses suggested that their organizations’ performance appraisal systems were deficient with respect to well‐established key components of performance appraisal. Most officers indicated that they, for example, had little or no opportunity for input, did not receive informal feedback on a regular basis, received evaluations that were based on personal traits (as opposed to performance criteria), and their appraisals did not to lead to improved job performance or the identification of career development objectives. Also, the vast majority of officers indicated that supervisors received little or no training. In addition to emphasizing the need for improved supervisor training, the discussion focused on the negative consequences of inadequate performance appraisal at the individual level (e.g. employee development) and the organizational level (e.g. poor utilization of resources and undermining other systems and organizational change strategies).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it