Incorporation of Obedience to Authority into New South Wales Police Force Recruit Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws on a longitudinal study of Australian (New South Wales) (n=286), Canadian (n=116) and Chinese (n=91) police recruits to discuss participants understandings of the concept of obedience to authority. Results for this study, which was conducted within the early stages of the recruits' training, indicate a significant degree of uncertainty amongst participants from all three jurisdictions when faced with varying situations involving obedience to authority issues. Policing researchers have long observed that recruits enter training with noble intentions and this is enhanced through elements of academy training, such as ethics education. In contrast, however, other researchers have found that once recruits commence their policing roles the negative aspects of police culture can impact adversely upon ethical decision making. In addition, the hierarchical nature of policing coupled with the authoritarian nature of academy training can instil in recruits obedience to authority attributes which can also erode ethical decisions. It is contended that understanding the perceptions of recruits and, in particular, those from New South Wales (NSW), concerning obedience to authority issues, may have implications for recruit training. By incorporating an understanding of obedience to authority along with associated practical scenarios within the academy training curriculum, inexperienced officers when faced with obedience to authority dilemmas in the field may be assisted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".