Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay emerges from a frustration with two common sense caricatures of police that circulate in left movements. The first portrays the police as the tools of elites, simple enforcers of an exploitative system. In this version, the police are not strategic actors, but merely the brute force of coercion – a force that is thuggish and often bumbling. We blur differences across time and space and suggest that any variation is solely a direct result of economic shifts. At other times, the police are portrayed as autonomous, even omnipotent, strategic players, without examining how relative their autonomy actually is, nor understanding how things might be changing and how and why police strategy varies across time and space. In fact, policing in Canada, the US and the UK is undergoing a broad shift in its logic and strategy. This shift is increasing police impunity, and involves an integration of the previously distinct fields of public and private policing, security and intelligence activities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".