MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139749714 · doi:10.1139/facets-2021-0005

The limits of our knowledge: tracking the size and scope of police involvement with persons with mental illness

2021· article· en· W3139749714 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laura Huey, Lorna Ferguson, Adam D. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Mental illnessContext (archaeology)Public relationsMental healthPolitical scienceService (business)PsychologyCriminologyBusinessPsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant public discourse has focused recently on police–civilian interactions involving with persons with mental illness (PMI). Despite increasing public attention, and growing demands for policy change, little is actually known about the myriad of ways in which Canadian police encounter PMI in the context of routine police work. To assist policymakers in developing evidence-informed policy, this paper attempts to shed light on present difficulties associated with addressing fundamental questions, such as the prevalence of mental health related issues in police calls for service. To do this, we attempt to map the size and scope of police calls for service involving PMI, drawing on both the available scientific data and the limited knowledge to be gleaned from available police reports. Our focus is on two broad categories of police interactions with citizens: public safety concerns (wellness checks, suicide threats, missing persons, mental health apprehensions) and crime prevention and response (encountering PMI as victims–complainants and (or) as potential suspects). We also explore the challenges policy-makers face in relying on police data and the importance of overcoming weaknesses in data collection and sharing in relation to the policing of uniquely vulnerable groups. This paper concludes with some key recommendations for addressing gaps highlighted.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207