MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762188675 · doi:10.1177/0886260517734222

What Makes Police Officers Act? Police Response to Instances of Intimate Partner Violence

2017· article· en· W2762188675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amy Peirone, Betty Jo Barrett, Chi Ho Cheung, Nazim Habibov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceCriminologyPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS Cycle 23: Victimization main file), this study assessed the relationship between individual and neighborhood-level factors and police response to spousal violence in Canada. A total of 890 participants in the GSS reported experiences of spousal violence within the previous 5 years, with approximately 22% of these victims reporting direct contact with the police because of the violence. Among this subsample of victims who had police contact, we evaluated the extent to which individual-level factors (sociodemographic and violence characteristics) and neighborhood-level factors (perceptions of social disorder and the presence of police facilities in one's community) were related to distinct types of police response to reported spousal violence. Regression analyses suggest variations in police response based on sociodemographic, violence, and neighborhood characteristics; however, overall satisfaction with police actions taken were not found to be significantly different among victims based on these characteristics. Implications are relevant for policing practice as results suggest that different victims may have different safety needs and abilities to communicate these needs to the police.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207