MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Competencies

2020· book-chapter· en· W4245981445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David M. Corey, Mark Zelig

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologyStressorApplied psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter, the authors discuss the functional competencies required to conduct psychological evaluations of police candidates and officers, including “occupational competence,” which includes knowledge about the essential functions of police officers, their working conditions and chain of command, and the psychological demands and stressors of police work. The authors provide guidance on how to self-assess for competency, as well as for bias, that, in relation to a particular referral, may preclude a competent assessment. Included are an explanation of how contemporary challenges in policing may shape the criterion standard for assessing psychological suitability and fitness and a brief summary of six interdisciplinary professional practice standards and guidelines documents—from the United States and Canada—that are especially pertinent to evaluations of police suitability and fitness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207