Policing in East Jerusalem: The Effect of Police Control and the Confidence of the Public in the Police Forces: A Role for Procedural Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an exploratory research 1 study that aims to better understand the relationship between East Jerusalem Palestinian residents' perceived police intolerance, legitimacy, and trust, to consequently determine the extent to which procedural justice can influence this relationship positively. Participants were surveyed on a range of topics including their daily contact with police, their perception of law enforcement behavior, their degree of trust in police use of procedural justice and how they believe police treat their ethnic group. We argue that how Jerusalem Palestinians perceive police bias is associated with their level of trust in police. Greater preconceived bias is associated with lower trust in police. In addition, we argue that perceiving police as procedurally just is positively related to trust. Importantly, this study finds a significant interaction effect between perceptions of police bias and procedural justice on Palestinians' trust in the police. Specifically, for those who view police as biased against Palestinians, procedural justice has a very weak but positive effect on trust. For those who hold the view that police are unbiased, perceiving police as generally procedurally just has a stronger positive effect on trust. This interaction effect suggests that perceived bias may shape how East Jerusalem Palestinians interpret police treatment of Palestinians. In the Old City in particular the level of Palestinian trust in the Israeli police has been extremely low.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".