Community Policing in Schools: Relationship-Building and the Responsibilities of School Resource Officers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract School resource officers (SROs) have become nearly ubiquitous in North American schools in the last three decades. Most research on SROs has examined their impact on violence and disorder at school, yielding mixed results; however, it is widely accepted that traditional law enforcement responsibilities comprise only one element of SROs’ triad of responsibilities, which also includes teaching and counselling. Although their responsibilities are based in community policing models, little research has explored the place of community policing principles within the work of SROs. Drawing upon mixed methods data collected from school administrators and SROs in a large Canadian city, this study examines relationship-building within the context of SROs’ triad of responsibilities. The results suggest that SROs follow a community policing approach and strategically foster mutually beneficial relationships to support their law enforcement, teaching, and counselling objectives. Further, as a result of their established relationships, SROs are positioned as key sources of support for school administrators.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.081 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it