The price tag of police body-worn cameras: officers’ and citizens’ perceptions about costs
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
Research shows that both police officers and the public consistently express support for body-worn cameras (BWCs). The cost of increasing police transparency and accountability, however, is often overlooked. As many agencies have been deterred by their high price, BWCs may not always be cost-effective. Citizens have also rarely been surveyed on BWCs’ financial implications, suggesting their support may have been miscalculated. Considering the calls for reducing police budgets, it seems important to question whether BWCs are an appropriate use of public money. This article investigates how financial implications influence support for BWCs. It first explores how officers perceive the financial implications of using BWCs through interviews and focus groups. Then, it examines public support for BWCs, as revealed in experimental phone surveys. Results indicate that officers are generally sceptical about the public value of BWCs. While citizens showed a high endorsement for BWCs, their support dropped when reminded it could lead to cutbacks in social programmes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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