Young People Who Use Drugs Views Toward the Power and Authority of Police Officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many young people who use drugs are structurally vulnerable to policing powers given the ongoing criminalization of drug possession. Police authority limits and the expression of that authority may play a significant role in police encounters among young people who use drugs. This qualitative study explores the views of young people who use drugs toward police power and authority in their recent encounters with police officers. Interviews were conducted with 38 young people who recently used illegal drugs in British Columbia, Canada. We found five interrelated themes related to perceptions of police authority: (1) skepticism and distrust toward authority; (2) paternalism and authority over drug use; (3) officer use of force; (4) police as power-hungry; and (5) officers above the law. Participants described police authority as limitless, unpredictable, untethered, easily abused, and lacking accountability. Participants feared holding police officers accountable to power abuses in a criminal justice system that they saw as stacked against them. Moving forward, institutional reforms may consider and account for the expression, limits, and use of police authority among young people who use drugs and other structurally vulnerable communities.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".