MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064050761 · doi:10.1177/0093854806288039

Violence Between the Police and the Public

2006· article· en· W2064050761 on OpenAlexaff
Patrik Manzoni, Manuel Eisner

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUse of forceOfficerBivariate analysisBurnoutPsychologySituational ethicsJob satisfactionSocial psychologyStructural equation modelingPoison controlApplied psychologyClinical psychologyPolitical scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress of police officers is assumed to be one of the causes for an increased use of force, but to date, very few studies have tested this relationship empirically. This study examines influences of perceived work-related stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and burnout on the use of force by police officers in Zurich, Switzerland ( n = 422). A new approach is developed by including the officer's routine activities (herein referred to as job profile) and victimization experiences as two situational controls and by capturing a continuum of self-reported force used in typical operational situations. Although bivariate results show significant relationships between use of force and work stress, job satisfaction, commitment, and burnout, multivariate analyses using structural equation models show no influence of stress-related factors on the amount of force. The job profile remains the only predictor of police use of force, whereas victimization is strongly correlated with use of force.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207