Community Policing: Perceptions of Officers Policing Indigenous Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of the First Nations Policing Program (FNPP) in 1992 was intended to provide professional and culturally appropriate policing responsive to community needs; however, there is considerable evidence that these efforts have fallen short of what was originally envisioned. This research examines perceptions about police work from a 2014 survey of 827 sworn officers policing Indigenous communities and draws some comparisons to the results of surveys conducted in 1996 and 2007 by different sets of researchers that asked the same questions of officers policing these places. Our results show that perceptions have changed: Officers in 2014 were less likely to favour key aspects of community policing, such as getting to know community members, soliciting help from the community, or getting help from community agencies, and a growing number of officers did not feel that Indigenous policing required a different policing style. We found these results varied according to the respondent’s organizational affiliation and whether the individual was of Indigenous ancestry; additionally, as the proportion of non-Indigenous and Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers increased, the support for community policing decreased. Given these findings, implications for a renewal of Indigenous policing 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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".