Public assessments of the police and policing in Hong Kong
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
This paper presents the findings from a focus group research study on public assessments of the police and policing in Hong Kong. The main findings indicate that while people have generally positive views about police effectiveness in responding promptly to and fighting crime, they have decidedly mixed views regarding stop and search and public order policing. By drawing on the multi-dimensional framework of trust proposed by other policing scholars, we suggest that a useful way to conceptualize public assessments of the police and questions of satisfaction and trust of policing in Hong Kong is to distinguish between people's instrumental concerns about personal safety and crime and their affective concerns about the process of policing and the symbolic role of the police in maintaining a particular way of life. The paper concludes by reaffirming the value of sociologically informed, qualitative policing research that examines questions of police-citizen relationship and legitimacy within a broader socio-political context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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