MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401682917 · doi:10.1177/00111287241271069

“Cops Need Doxxed”: Releasing Personal Information of Police Officers as a Tool of Political Harassment

2024· article· en· W4401682917 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrime & Delinquency · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSociopolitical Dynamics in Russia
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentPoliticsCriminologyPsychologyPersonally identifiable informationComputer securityInternet privacySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study explores the phenomenon of doxxing and, in particular, the use of doxxing as a form of harassment against police officers. This work relies on an analysis of in-depth interviews with 65 ( n = 65) police officers from across Canada, each of whom has had experiences of policing politically contested events. Drawing on our data, we outline specific examples of the doxxing of police officers, before exploring the political and other impacts on both police agencies and individual officers. We conclude with a discussion of the need for police and policymakers to begin considering the need for potential changes to policy and practice in order to protect workers from off-duty harassment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.336 · 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