LGBTIQ2S+ Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between LGBTIQ2S+ Canadians and the police has long been fraught with tension, and the role of policing in LGBTIQ2+ communities has been the subject of significant public debate and scrutiny. However, little research has been conducted on LGBTIQ2S+ Canadians’ perceptions of police legitimacy, the antecedents thereof, nor how these perceptions vary by identity within the community. This thesis seeks to address these gaps in the existing literature by asking: Is there a relationship between LGBTIQ2S+ Canadians’ perceptions of procedural justice and their perceptions of police legitimacy? How do perceptions of police legitimacy differ between identities within the Canadian LGBTIQ2S+ community? These research questions are addressed using survey responses from 338 LGBTIQ2S+-identifying individuals in Canada, analyzed using mixed-methods. The findings reveal that procedural justice is strongly associated with police legitimacy, and participants have notably low perceptions of both variables. Further, perceptions of police legitimacy vary by identity within the community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".