MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083516590 · doi:10.1093/police/paaa040

Calling the Police: Dispatchers as Important Interpreters and Manufacturers of Calls for Service Data

2020· article· en· W3083516590 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing A Journal of Policy and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipMainstreamNexus (standard)Work (physics)Subject (documents)Public relationsService (business)NarrativeSociologyCriminologyPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringLawMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Policing has historically been conceptualized as a team sport which requires the work of many to produce the output of one. Although police officers have been the focus of much policing research, it is important to recognize that the work of officers hinges upon the work of dispatchers. As a lifeline for both citizens and police officers, dispatchers play an integral role in ensuring that help is provided where help is required via their management of the emergency (911) telephone and radio system. Despite their importance, however, dispatchers have largely been excluded from mainstream criminological scholarship. Supplemented by a narrative review of the scant literature on the subject of dispatching, this commentary illustrates the important role of dispatchers in policing operations, theorizes the dearth of research regarding dispatchers, and calls for future research to better understand their discretionary and interpretive work. This commentary thus casts light on these highly important but understudied and undertheorized figures in the policing nexus.

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 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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.319 · 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