Students' Perceptions of Women in Policing: The Role of Media Portrayal and Representation of Policewomen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Diversity and representation are important for organizational growth and sustainability, particularly in policing, where women are highly underrepresented. Although attitudinal research in policing is extensive, little has been done to assess factors that influence citizens’ perceptions of women in policing. This study, therefore, investigates the effects of media and film representation of women in policing on students' perceptions of the female police officer. Design/Methodology: Using a cross-sectional design, the study obtained data from 152 university students enrolled in one of the major research institutions in a southern state of the U.S. during the 2023-2024 academic year. Findings: Using a multivariate analytical approach, the study did not support the hypothesis that negative portrayals of policewomen in media significantly influence students’ perceptions. Originality: The findings of the study provide information that could be useful for improving citizens' attitudes toward women in policing and enhancing the police-citizens relationship. The manuscript offers an original contribution to the study of policing, especially as it relates to factors that influence perceptions of police officers.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".