Exploring the Perceptual Effects of Uniforms and Accoutrements Among a Sample of Police Officers: The Locker Room as a Site of Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of officer appearance on public perceptions of police have been the subject of considerable scholarly attention. Little known research, however, has explored such effects on officers’ perceptions of each other. As part of the present research, we complement previous literature by testing the perceptual effects of uniforms and accoutrements among a sample of sworn police officers (N = 238) from the Queensland Police Service. Our results reveal that different types of attire (e.g. uniform or civilian), different styles of uniforms (e.g. light blue shirt or dark blue shirt), different accoutrements (e.g. high-visibility vest or sunglasses), and different bodily manipulations (e.g. sleeve tattoo) can impact officers’ perceptions of each other along various outcomes, including accountability, aggression, approachability, competency, friendliness, intimidation, professionalism, respectfulness, and trustworthiness. We discuss our results with respect to policing research, policy, and practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".