Homegrown Views? Exploring Immigrant and Racialized People’s Perceptions of Police in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When compared to studies examining racialized people’s perceptions of police in North America, studies of immigrants’ views of police are quite rare and they often conflate the views of immigrants with those of racialized people. Yet, we know racialized people are not necessarily immigrants and immigrants are not necessarily racialized. Research that distinguishes immigrant status from racialized status has found important differences based on immigrant vs. native-born status, country of origin, and length of settlement. This research builds on these findings by specifically considering the relative influence of universal and immigrant-specific factors that may shape within-group views of police. Using the 2014 General Social Survey, variations in views of police among South Asians – Canada’s largest racialized group – are explored by whether they were born in Canada, immigrated recently, or had long settled within Canada. Our findings suggest that traditional measures – or the universal factors – used to assess perceptions of police may not explain immigrants’ views in the same way that they do for native-born individuals, and that immigrants’ views of police may be shaped in ways that are, as of yet, unaccounted for in the literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".