Police Charging Practices for Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence 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
Objectives: To examine police charging practices in case of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Canada. Methods: In this national level study, we explore police charging in cases of IPV using data from the 2008 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey. Using logistic regression, we examine the impact of several key legal and extralegal factors on the police charging decisions. Results: Analysis shows that, while the majority of cases were cleared by charge, the proportion of cases in which police recommended a charge varied across the country. Further, the majority of legal and extralegal variables examined were significantly associated with the police decision to lay a charge across the jurisdictions examined, including the presence of victim injury, multiple victims, offence type as well as gender of the victim and the victim–accused relationship. Conclusion: Study findings indicate that future research on police charging in cases of IPV require more precise examinations of the role played by gender and the type of relationship as well as an investigation of the community context in which police decisions are made.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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