MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214759898 · doi:10.1093/police/paab071

Auxiliary Police Volunteer Experiences and Motivations to Volunteer in Canada

2021· article· en· W3214759898 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing A Journal of Policy and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerPublic relationsVariety (cybernetics)Service (business)Community policingWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Policing has become a shared endeavour among a variety of community stakeholders. Citizens are expected to take on a more active role in securing their own safety. Volunteers are one particular group that has been marshalled to become an essential part of policing. In Canada, volunteers work alongside police officers as auxiliary members and assist in a wide range of activities, such as victim support, safety campaigns, community events, and patrol. Despite auxiliary members actively participating in policing duties, we know little about their experiences or motivations for volunteering. This article presents the results of a survey conducted with auxiliary police personnel at a police service in Canada and discusses their roles and tasks, perceived quality of and ways to improve their experiences, and motivations to volunteer. We conclude by discussing how police services could enhance auxiliary members’ experiences and better integrate this group into regular police officer recruitment efforts.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.342 · 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