MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025396194 · doi:10.1177/0020852305051684

Budgetary control of Australian police services and the new governance of security

2005· article· en· W2025396194 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît Dupont

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Administrative Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic administrationCorporate governanceAccountabilityGovernment (linguistics)Control (management)Context (archaeology)Public relationsPoliticsNew public managementSocial securityManagement control systemSocial controlBusinessPublic sectorPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the example of the Australian police services, this article examines the impact of the New Public Management tools on strengthening administrative accountability. Governments, faced with increasing social demand for security, have launched into political auctions on the themes of police activity and social control. Relationships between the authorities and the police administrators have been redefined, mainly through more rigorous budgetary control. After a rapid examination of the administrative context that led to the implementation of programme budgeting — the main government tool in this area — the article examines the tensions that resulted from its introduction. Particular emphasis is placed upon the limitations of such a tool in the field of security, which is undergoing profound reconfiguration as a result of increasingly frequent cooperation between public, private and hybrid actors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Administrative SciencesSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207