Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of the fourth and last survey administrated among a cohort of Quebec police recruits between 2000 and 2008 (N ranged from 731 subjects at the on-set of this research, to 281 at its last stage). The questionnaire (170 items) is an adaptation of the tool developed for the pioneering study conducted in France by the late Dominique Monjardet. In this article, we present the evolution of respondents’ opinions and attitudes regarding various aspects of police functions, police duties and police ethics. Results show, on the one hand, that after 6 to 7 years as police officers, respondents are still highly confident that they made the right career choice and that being a police officer will fulfill the opportunities they first foresaw when they opted for the profession. On the other hand, the results also show a regular and steady decrease in respondents’ attitudes regarding ethical standards and global confidence in public safety institutions in order to help them fulfill their duties and obligations. We explore some of these issues in order to better understand their origins and the impacts they might generate in the increasing professionalization of police functions in Quebec.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".