Police confrontations among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Street-level policing has been recognized as a driver of health-related harms among people who inject drugs (IDU). However, the extent of interaction between police and street-involved youth has not been well characterized. We examined the incidence and risk factors for police confrontations among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting. Methods Using data derived from participants enrolled in the At-Risk Youth Study (ARYS) between 2005 and 2011, we assessed factors associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest in the previous six months using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with logit link for binary outcomes. Results Among 991 participants followed during the study period, 440 (44.4%) reported being stopped, searched, or detained by police for an incidence density of 49.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36.42–65.01) per 100 person years. In multivariate GEE analyses, factors associated with police confrontations included: male gender (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.35), homelessness (AOR = 2.05), recent incarceration (AOR = 1.78), daily cannabis use (AOR = 1.31), daily heroin injecting (AOR = 1.36), crack pipe/syringe sharing (AOR = 1.61), injection drug use (AOR = 1.37), public drug use (AOR = 2.19), sex work involvement (AOR = 1.67), and drug dealing (AOR = 1.49) (all p<0.05). In total, 19.0% of participants reported that police confiscated their drug paraphernalia without arresting them. Additionally, 16.9% individuals reported experiencing violence at the hands of police. Conclusion We found that various factors, such as homelessness and markers of more severe addiction, increased the likelihood of being confronted by police, and police confrontations were associated with markers of health-related harm among street youth. These findings highlight the need for social and structural interventions that best enable police to fulfill public safety and public order objectives without negatively influencing health behaviours of street youth.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".