From Community to Public Safety Governance in Policing and Child Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'interopérabilité grandissante entre le maintien de l'ordre et la protection de l'enfant au Canada et au Royaume‐Uni semble indiquer que nous nous trouvons au milieu d'un changement gouvernemental passant de la gouvernance communautaire à une gouvernance de la sécurité publique. En effet, les discours mettant l'accent sur l'expertise locale en maintien de l'ordre et en protection de l'enfant se sont grandement transformés en raison des critiques sur le manque d'interdépendance entre les organismes. Les deux pays ont maintenant créé des bases de données interinstitutionnelles pour la gestion des personnes à risque. Cette intégration administrative engendre différentes formes de réglementations. Les auteurs concluent leur article en soutenant que cet ethos émergeant peut être conceptualisé comme une rationalité gouvernementale naissante. The growing interoperability between policing and child protection in Canada and the United Kingdom suggests that we are in the midst of a governmental shift from community governance to public safety governance. Indeed, discourses emphasizing local expertise in policing and child protection have largely muted because of criticisms over the lack of interagency interconnectedness. Both countries have now developed national interagency databases for the management of persons of risk. This institutional integration engenders different forms of regulation. We conclude by arguing that this emergent ethos may be conceptualized as a nascent governmental rationality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".