Police Encounters for Behavioral Health‐Related Reasons in Rural and Remote Communities: A Canadian Study<sup>☆</sup>
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
Abstract Evidence suggests police officers are increasingly called upon to respond to incidents related to mental health issues, emotional problems, and substance abuse. Many have raised concerns regarding their involvement in such incidents. Yet, little is known about these encounters in rural and remote communities despite evidence suggesting that the context of non‐urban areas should matter. Accordingly, this article proposes to examine variations in self‐reported encounters with the police for behavioral health‐related reasons across urban, rural, and remote communities. Using data from the 2014 General Social Survey, a representative sample of the Canadian population, we assess these self‐reported encounters from two different angles: encounters for one's own behavioral health crisis and encounters for a family member's behavioral health needs. While findings on the former are inconclusive, those examining police contacts for a family member suggest that living in rural or remote communities is significantly associated with a greater probability of experiencing such situations relative to living in urban areas. Furthermore, this probability increases with the relative geographical isolation of communities. These results are discussed in light of the rising concerns regarding our reliance on the police for such incidents and the need to account for the situation of rural and remote communities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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