Policing small town Canada : a comparison between Alberta and Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores community based policing (CBP) in small towns and rural communities in Alberta and Nova Scotia. This thesis explores the meaning of particular concepts that are commonly employed in the implementation of CBP, particularly in the small town and rural setting. In order to assess the attitudes of the police officers who are expected to put CBP into practice, a mail- back survey was prepared and delivered to 256 RCMP and municipal police officers in two primarily rural areas of Alberta and Nova Scotia. An analysis was done on the 131 respondents who returned a completed survey, giving a reasonable completion rate of 52%. The main finding is that most police officers tended to share similar attitudes about CBP and endorse the official ideology, which the idea has been institutionalized in these geographically separate areas. Overall, the officers adopt a relatively narrow definition of the role of the community in policing. The community was to be involved in crime prevention, in identifying crime problems, and as an exterior booster, but issues of accountability, funding, training, and discipline were largely to remain police prerogatives. In only a limited sense could it be claimed that, in the view of officers, the "community are the police". The degree of general consensus is highlighted by the absence of Statistically significant differences between officers of the two provinces, and between other key independent variables, such as age and education, as well as where the sample distribution was skewed more, such as rank, gender, and type of policing agency (RCMP or municipal).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".