What do the Rural Folks Think? Perceptions of Police Performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several highly publicized incidents have drawn the public’s attention to the problem of rural crime in Canada, and this focus is appropriate given that rates of rural crime in most provinces are higher than in urban areas. This study reports the results of an examination of urban and rural residents’ perceptions of the police in Saskatchewan, Canada. Controlling for their socio-demographic characteristics, prior victimization, perceptions of crime, and contact with the police, the results of 1,791 phone surveys reveal that rural residents are less likely than their urban counterparts to indicate their police do a good job of enforcing the laws, promptly responding to calls for service, providing them with crime prevention information, ensuring their safety, or cooperating with them to address their concerns. We also found that both urban and rural residents who felt their communities were unsafe or neutral (neither safe nor unsafe) were less likely to indicate the police did a good job in all the seven categories of police performance examined in this research. Implications for rural policing practice and research are identified considering these findings.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it