MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255482592 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/2dh5s

Measuring Public Attitudes Towards the Police

2019· preprint· en· W4255482592 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityPublic Safety Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsPublic opinionSet (abstract data type)Measure (data warehouse)PsychologyPublic relationsApplied psychologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceData miningLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given that there is currently no common approach used across Canada to measure public attitudes towards the police, the objective of this study was to develop an empirically-informed small subset of items that can be used by Canadian police services for this purpose. We recommend a standardized, comprehensive and validated set of 12 ‘core’ survey items to measure public attitudes towards the police. Police services across Canada can use them to capture public opinion in a way that is comparable between jurisdictions and track change over time. We also recommend a supplementary set of measures of socio-demographics, police-citizen contact, victimization experience, perceived safety and perceived disorder.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.076 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207