Deservingness and Perceptions of Procedural Justice in Citizen Encounters with the Police
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributive justice theories (e.g., relative deprivation, equity, justice motive theory) have consistently postulated that disputants' satisfaction with the outcomes of social conflicts is influenced by the extent to which allocations are consistent with salient standards of deservingness or entitlement. So, for example, relative deprivation theorists (e.g., Crosby, 1976; Davis, 1959; Gurr, 1970; Runciman, 1966) have shown that feelings of indignation or outrage stemming from deprivation are moderated by notions of entitlement. They have revealed that judgments about what individuals feel they deserve are based on comparisons with what others within their group or within a similar context have received rather than on absolute outcomes. This theory explains why those in an objectively positive situation can evaluate their situation negatively, and why those in a seemingly poor situation can view their situation optimistically. Crosby's (1982) study of working women identified two preconditions essential for relative deprivation – lesser outcomes than one wants, and lesser outcomes than one deserves. Similarly, equity theorists (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961; Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1976) assume that an individual's sense of equity acts as a powerful norm influencing social behavior. This norm is comprised of the belief that outcomes, both positive and negative, should be proportional to one's contribution and involvement within the group. When an inequitable distribution of outcomes is perceived, it is argued that individuals will experience “inequity distress.” It is theorized that the dissonance this perception creates will motivate the individual to restore equity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".