Perceptions of trust in the police: a cross-national comparison
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative analyses enable researchers to identify individual- and structural-level factors that influence the operations of the justice system that might not be evident when examining these indicators in a single nation. In this study, the factors associated with the public’s self-reported trust in thepolice were examined in 105 nations. We analysed the contributions of three theoretical propositions: social integration, democratic performance, and self-reported perceptions of crime. With respect to the structural factors, the public expressed the most trust in the police in nations with a greater adherence to the rule of law and a higher per capita gross domestic product. Citizens in countries perceived to be more corrupt were also less likely to believe their police were trustworthy. Inconsistent with expectations, individual-level factors, such as perceptions about crime, risks of being victimised, and prior histories of victimisation also exerted an influence on the public’s perceptions of trust. .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it