Issues and Patterns in the Comparative International Study of Police Strength
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Published studies have examined patterns of police strength in only a handful of industrialized, and mostly English-speaking, democracies. There are primarily two reasons for this. First, practical limitations, especially language, make it difficult to collect international data on police strength. Second, even when such data are available, they are often riddled with errors related to erratic reporting and other reliability and validity problems. Perhaps the most important source of these problems is simply confusion among researchers and/or survey respondents about the meaning of the term police. We begin by reviewing existing research and theory on police strength. Using a new data set compiled from multiple sources, we then explore differences in police strength, both between nations (cross-sectionally) and over time (longitudinally). After summarizing what is and what remains to be known about police strength from a comparative perspective, we close with an explicit agenda for future theory, research and data collection on this topic.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it