Police Victim and Witness Interviewing in a Northern Canadian Territory: Measuring Perceptions and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Police victim and witness interviewing in a northern Canadian territory with a predominantly Indigenous population was examined across two studies. In study 1, an Internet survey about interview training, practices and cross-cultural issues was completed by serving police officers ( N = 37). In study 2, transcripts of interviews with Indigenous adult victims and witnesses ( N = 20) were coded for the presence of various interviewing practices (e.g. question types, interruptions, talking time). Survey results showed that most officers were untrained in scientific-interviewing protocols but were aware of the general practices that constitute a competent interview (e.g. building rapport, requesting a free narrative). Most respondents indicated that cultural differences impact their interviewing style. Results of the transcript analysis showed that officers violated the 80/20 talking rule in 90% of the interviews and unproductive question types (e.g. closed yes/no) were used often. All interviews contained a request for a full account, most interviews contained elements of active listening and few interruptions were observed. These findings are discussed with reference to how interviewing and cross-cultural communication training could help police organizations who serve Indigenous populations. Future research should consider whether established international best practices for interviewing are effective in settings with Indigenous victims and witnesses.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".