A Canadian replication of Telep and Lum’s (2014) examination of police officers’ receptivity to empirical research
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: QualitativeConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.881
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.568
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Research conducted in the United States (U.S.) suggests that many police professionals are unaware of, or resistant to, empirical research, and see little value in adopting evidence-based approaches for tackling policing issues. To determine whether similar views are held by Canadian police professionals, 598 police professionals (civilians and officers) from seven police services across Canada were surveyed. The survey was designed by Lum and Telep (n.d. Officer receptivity survey on evidence-based policing. Fairfax, VA: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University) to determine respondents’ knowledge of, and support for, evidence-based policing (EBP). Using their survey allowed us to compare our results to the data they collected in the U.S. Although Canadian respondents had similar concerns regarding EBP as those in the U.S., in several ways, Canadian police professionals were more open to the idea of EBP. The results are encouraging, but still suggest a lack of buy-in from some police professionals in certain regards. Potential reasons for the cross-national discrepancies, and the consequences of the findings, are discussed.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Policing & Society
- Topic
- Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Western UniversityCarleton University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- OfficerEmpirical researchEmpirical evidenceCriminologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyReceptivityLawMedicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes