Mediate or litigate: An evaluation of citizen and police officer perspectives on the use of mediation to resolve citizen-police conflict in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the confrontational nature of citizen-police interactions, conflict between both groups is inevitable. On one hand, it is argued that citizen-police conflict and complaints against the police must be properly ventilated; however, on the other hand, it is argued that existing dispute resolution mechanisms are biased in favor of the police. With this in mind, police departments and community residents are increasingly seeking alternative mechanisms to resolve citizen-police conflicts as well as citizen complaints against police officers and mediation has emerged as a forerunner. Using a quantitative approach, this exploratory study concurrently evaluated citizen and police officer perspectives regarding the role of mediation as an alternative to judicial and other legal based mechanisms to resolve citizen-police conflicts in Trinidad and Tobago. The study is premised on ‘islandness’ and the findings indicate that generally, both citizens and police officers are willing to utilize mediation to resolve citizen-police disputes, however, there are some disparities over the issue by gender. The paper concludes by advocating for a complaints management system that includes mediation within a consultative framework focused of behavioral improvements to be implemented within the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".