MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096415467 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.53.1.1

Visible Minorities and Confidence in the Police

2011· article· en· W2096415467 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PerceptionRace (biology)Social psychologyPsychologyCriminologyPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have been conducted about differential public perceptions of the police in Canada. Based on the 2004 General Social Survey of Canada, this article examines the impact of belonging to the category visible minorities on citizens' confidence in the police. Consistent with the theoretical prediction, results of multivariate analyses show that members of visible minorities had lower levels of confidence than non–members of visible minorities, even after the effects of perceptions, community contexts, and crime-related variables were controlled for. The small but persistent effect of visible minorities raises questions about race relations in Canada. Other interesting significant predictors of confidence in the police are community context, perceptions, and crime experiences. The findings indicate that equal racial confidence in the police is yet to be achieved and continued reform measures are needed if the police force is to win the hearts and minds of visible minorities in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.150 · 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