Policing “Domestic Disturbances” in Small Towns and Rural Communities: Implications for Officer and Victim Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on Canadian police data on homicide involving domestic dispute calls from 1960 to the present (n = 20), as well as on in‐depth interviews with police officers (n = 33) working in rural and remote communities, the authors reexamine the argument that police attendance at domestic disturbance calls can pose a special threat to officer safety. Although some scholarship suggests that purported risks have been overstated, the authors argue that location may be a critical factor in reducing or heightening not only risks to officers, but also to victims. Although intended as an exploratory work, situated within the context of cultural support for domestic violence in rural communities, the authors raise both interesting policy implications, as well as potential avenues for future research. En partant de données de la police canadienne sur les homicides impliquant des disputes familiales de 1960 à nos jours (n = 20), ainsi que sur des entrevues en profondeur avec des agents policiers (n = 33) travaillant dans des régions rurales et des communautés éloignées, les auteurs ré‐examinent l'argument voulant que les interventions policières lors d'appels liés à des problèmes domestiques posent un risque spécial pour les agents policiers. Même si certains spécialistes suggèrent que ces risques sont exagérés, les auteurs affirment que le lieu pourrait être un facteur important par rapport au niveau de risque pour les agents policiers, ainsi que les victimes. Même s'il s'agit d'une recherche exploratoire, se situant dans le contexte du soutient culturel de la violence domestique dans les communautés rurales, les auteurs s'intéressent à la fois aux implications en termes de gestion et aux directions possibles en termes de recherches futures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".