Police Interactions with the Mentally Ill: The Role of Procedural Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Police encounters with mentally ill individuals that involve the use of force by police are relatively infrequent, but sometimes quite volatile. Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, poorly funded and fragmented community treatment alternatives, plus increasingly restrictive civil commitment criteria have led to increased contacts with the police. Police need to exercise restraint when using force against individuals suffering from a mental disorder. There is a clear need for specialized crisis intervention police training for dealing with the mentally ill. Procedural justice theory offers a promising approach to improving police-citizen interactions. According to this framework, the fairness with which an individual is treated during an encounter by an authority figure, such as the police, can affect the perceived legitimacy of these interactions and any disposition that flows from them. This is particularly important regarding interactions between the police and those suffering from a mental disorder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".