Working Like a Dog: A Mixed-Method Study of Public Support for Police Dogs and Their Utilities
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
Working dogs play integral roles across many human workplaces. This is no exception in the criminal justice system, and policing more specifically, where police dogs are used in various capacities. Many questions remain, however, regarding the public’s perceptions of dogs in different working contexts. Drawing upon data from a sample of Canadian and American adults (n = 201) obtained via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, the present research explores public perceptions of working dogs’ utilities, with an emphasis on police dogs. The findings reveal that while participants overwhelmingly supported working dogs in health and wellbeing contexts, they expressed more mixed perceptions regarding police dogs. The findings also reveal that police dogs’ utilities are related to participants’ overall support for police dogs, but that the specific relationship varies as a function of the utility. Amidst growing concerns regarding the use of police dogs, these findings may help police organizations incorporate evidence-based decision-making related to the deployment of police dogs moving forward.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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