MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213330964 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646177

Community policing in Durham Region: implications for diverse ethnic groups

2021· preprint· en· W4213330964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheldon Funk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionCommunity policingEthnic groupGovernment (linguistics)Ethnically diverseService (business)Community serviceEthnic communityCounty governmentCriminologyPolitical sciencePublic administrationSociologyPublic relationsLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many academics have claimed that community policing has been unevenly applied, and that it is unable to address the needs of an ethnically diverse community. The goal is to assess if this assertion is true with respect to Durham Region. This study employs a document analysis of Durham Regional Police Service reports and the Government of Ontario's community policing orientation to determine whether its approach is representative of the provincial benchmark , and if it addresses ethnicized group concerns. The result suggest that community policing has been implemented with modest success in both regards.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.115 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207