Police officer physical ability testing – Re‐validating a selection criterion
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
The aim of this study was to determine the bona fide occupational requirements of general duty police work, and use this information to re‐validate a physical abilities test used in the police recruit selection process. A systematic random sample ( n = 267) of general duty police officers completed two questionnaires: one concerning “average” duties, and one concerning the most physically demanding critical incident occurring in the 12 months prior. Of those completing the surveys, observational data were collected on every second officer, resulting in observational data collected for 121 officers, involving the recording of all physical activities and movement patterns observed throughout a ten hour shift. Data collected suggest there is a core of bona fide occupational requirements for general duty police work – walking, climbing stairs, manipulating objects, twisting/turning, pulling/pushing, running, bending, squatting and kneeling, and lifting and carrying. Many of these are involved in physical control of suspects, and can be tested using a well designed physical abilities test that simulates getting to the problem, controlling the problem, and removing the problem.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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