Perceptions of police professionalisation in British Columbia: police reform study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, investigated the perceptions of British Columbians, police officers, and criminal justice experts as they relate to the professionalisation of policing in British Columbia. To gather data, the study included two province-wide surveys of British Columbians, a survey of BC police officers, and semi-structured interviews with various criminal justice experts. The results of the study showed that most of the public surveyed (≈70%) and many of the police (≈50%) would support the Government of British Columbia establishing a professional college of policing. What’s more, the results of this study also suggest most British Columbians (including many police officers) want the practice of policing to be more evidence-based, transparent, and responsive to societal demands. Considering a professional college of policing would be mandated to protect the public from policing malpractice and malfeasance, public confidence in, trust of, and support for the police would undoubtedly increase. Equally, by having all police officers in the province being mandated to become members of the professional college of policing (including members of the RCMP), standards would be elevated, and a healthier, more community-focused policing culture would likely emerge. Lastly, a professional college of policing could ultimately provide the much-needed opportunity and foundation upon which policing could become more democratic, effective, and community-focused –– supporting the practice of policing finally being divorced from its colonial roots.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".