POLICE STUDIES PROGRAM FOR YOUTH AT RISK: THE ROLE OF POLICE DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND PERSONAL MORALITY IN EXPLAINING POLICE LEGITIMACY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined a unique police studies intervention program by comparing two groups of youth-at-risk in two types of residential youth schools. The experimental group included 129 youths who had attended a police studies program, while the control group included 167 youths who had attended a different intervention program, without police studies. We hypothesized that the experimental group would have more positive perceptions of police legitimacy and distributive justice and higher levels of personal morality than the control group would. Moreover, we hypothesized that the relationship between the type of the intervention program and perceptions of police legitimacy would be explained by youths’ personal morality and perceptions of police distributive justice. The study showed that the experimental group had more positive perceptions of police legitimacy and higher personal morality than did the control group, but there were no differences in perceived police distributive justice between the two groups. In addition, while personal morality partly mediated the link between the type of intervention program and perceptions of police legitimacy, perceived police distributive justice did not. Empirical and theoretical implications 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".