“What If I Call Them the Smurfs?” Comparing Marginalized People Who Use Drugs’ Experiences and Interactions with Auxiliary and Sworn Police Officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Police civilianization represents one of the most significant developments in contemporary policing. However, little is known about how marginalized communities, who are routinely subjected to civilian police work, perceive, and experience these actors. Drawing upon interviews with 66 unhoused people who use drugs in Winnipeg (Canada), we compare participants’ perceptions of and experiences with the Winnipeg Police Services’ (WPS) Auxiliary Force Cadets—civilian police with limited legal authorities—and sworn WPS officers. Participants reflected on Cadets’ inferior legal authority to explain their invasive and aggressive policing style, whereas they perceived sworn officers as more passive. They thus modified their behaviours in response to their perceptions of and interactions with these different policing actors. We demonstrate how marginalized persons distinguish between varied policing actors, engaging in what we coin police actor demarcation , and analyze why this distinction matters with respect to how they navigate and interact with policing bodies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".