MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386169000 · doi:10.32920/24033594.v1

Understanding the impact of police brutality on black sexually minoritized men

2023· preprint· en· W4386169000 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Quinn, Travonne Edwards, Anthony Johnson, Lois M. Takahashi, Andrea L. Dakin, Nora Bouacha, Dexter R. Voisin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolice brutalityPsychosocialThematic analysisPsychologyAnxietyFeelingMental healthCriminologySocial psychologyQualitative researchSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young Black gay, bisexual, and other sexually minoritized men (SMM) face high levels of police brutality and other negative, unwarranted encounters with the police. Such interactions have known health consequences. The purpose of this study was to understand the health, mental health, and social consequences of police brutality experienced by young Black SMM. We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 Black, cisgender men, ages of 16–30 and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. Our primary results are summarized in four themes: 1) Police brutality is built into the system and diminishes trust; 2) Videos and social media make visible violence that has long existed; 3) Police brutality contributes to anxiety and other psychosocial effects; and 4) Violence reduces feelings of safety and contributes to avoidance of police. Our results highlight the direct and vicarious police brutality participants are subjected to and sheds light on the effects of such violence on trust, perceived safety, anxiety, and trauma symptoms. Results from this study contribute to the needed public health conversation around police brutality against Black men, specifically shedding light on the experiences of Black SMM.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→