Adverse Childhood Experiences and Police Contact in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research has demonstrated that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a risk factor for criminal justice system contact. However, much of this research is limited by (1) being conducted in the United States and (2) a lack of details on specific types of harmful experiences of criminal justice system contact, such as police contact characterized by intrusion or harassment. Using survey data from 940 individuals aged 16 to 30 in Canada from the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviors, this study investigates the relationship between ACEs and police contact, focusing on encounters involving intrusion or harassment. Results from logistic and multinomial logistic regression analyses reveal that individuals with high ACE exposure, particularly those with four or more ACEs, are more likely to have police contact, including experiences of intrusion and harassment. The results are significant in understanding the interplay between childhood trauma and later encounters with the criminal justice system, emphasizing the need for trauma-informed approaches in policing and healthcare. The study highlights the importance of early interventions to mitigate the effects of ACEs and prevent adverse outcomes in police interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".