Citizen attitudes toward the police in Canada
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
Purpose Citizens' opinions of the police are important indicators of how well the police are performing their duties and can help to shape police practice as well as public policy. However, little research exists in Canada on people's opinions of the police. This paper aims to provide a more robust understanding of citizen attitudes toward the police in Canada by examining a variety of factors that have been deemed important in shaping people's attitudes in other countries (predominantly from research conducted in the USA). Design/methodology/approach The paper utilizes path analysis to decompose and better understand the relationships between sociodemographic/non‐sociodemographic variables and attitudes toward the police. Data were drawn from the 1999 General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada. A random sample of Canadians was surveyed regarding victimization, personal safety and attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Findings Several distinct groups of people (i.e. young people, visible minorities, males, those who have experienced criminal victimization, those dissatisfied with their safety and those who perceive their neighborhoods as being high in crime) emerged as having negative views toward the police, which is consistent with much of the research conducted in the USA. Originality/value Police practice should more closely resemble the principles inherent in community policing if certain groups' negative views of the police are to be improved. This can be partly accomplished by the police being more inclusive of diverse opinions in the community and actively seeking out this opinion in order to better inform policing practices and 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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