MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156796451 · doi:10.1177/0093854800027006001

Policing the Police: Surveillance and the Predilection for Leniency

2000· article· en· W2156796451 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisibilityHuman factors and ergonomicsWork (physics)PsychologySuicide preventionApplied psychologyPoison controlOccupational safety and healthComputer securityInjury preventionCriminologySocial psychologyEngineeringMedical emergencyComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By raising the visibility of frontline police work, emerging technologies such as mobile audiovisual systems offer the potential to alter officers' discretionary behavior. In this study, 265 Canadian officers were asked to speculate on how they would handle a hypothetical traffic offense. Half were asked to imagine their actions were being videotaped, whereas the other half were not presented with this request. Descriptive and multivariate analyses showed that responses were shaped by a complex interplay of factors. The study concluded that surveillance can encourage, as well as inhibit, the police predilection for lenience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.328 · 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