Taking the Temperature: An Intersectional Examination of Diversity Acceptance in Canadian Police Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This exploratory study analyses data from in-depth interviews (116 from 31 police services across Canada) and an online survey (N = 727) to examine how gender and racial ideologies inform ongoing cultural and structural adherence to hegemonic whiteness and masculinity, impacting who has power (and who does not) within the institution of policing. White, cisgender, heterosexual men were the most likely to present views consistent with white supremacist patriarchy. Their ongoing cultural, structural, and material power created gatekeeping conditions that are at least part of the explanation for barriers to the recruitment and promotion of racialized women, men, and white women. Findings also reveal that a significant proportion of white women and some racialized men also upheld these ideologies, indicating cultural-level buy-in. There were disrupters who attempted to influence cultural and structural change, but barriers and resistance at leadership levels remain. Thus, this study adds to the growing body of evidence that diversity representation alone has not, and will not, transform the institution in a timely and meaningful way.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".