Practitioner perceptions of the transportability of Operation Ceasefire to youth in gangs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gang violence, now more than ever, is fresh in the minds of British Columbians, politicians, and law enforcement entities. The coming years will see new policies and programs implemented with the aim of reducing gang-related violence, homicides, and related criminal activities. To that end, this research examines Operation Ceasefire, a program used in the United States, gauging practitioner perceptions of its applicability to youth in gangs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Using a qualitative methodology, 12 key stakeholders were interviewed, each currently employed in law enforcement capacities in various municipal, provincial, and federally organized gang units. Through garnering frontline responses, this study explored whether local practitioners believe Operation Ceasefire interventions used in Boston and other American cities can be successfully implemented in the Lower Mainland. The results of this research yielded three key perceptions. Firstly, practitioners believe gangs in the Lower Mainland are fundamentally different from gangs in other parts of Canada or the United States as many gang-involved youth come from affluence, are motivated by non-traditional push and pull factors, and engage in cross-jurisdictional criminal activity over large geographic areas. Second, practitioners perceived that the Canadian legal system hinders pulling-levers style approaches, though many identified promising avenues for enforcement. Thirdly, practitioners perceive prevention and intervention activities to be important elements of a gang strategy, in addition to enforcement. These results inform policy, programs, and intervention methods that can reduce gang violence in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and yield valuable insights into the perceptions of practitioners actively engaged in the policing of gang violence in our communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".